Me bun a fire pon a weak heart
Babylon and dem free talk coulda never get me down
And though they try to use me
And abuse me
I leave dem with a frown

. . . Fire!
You and your crew can go to Hell
‘Cause after we no under your colonial spell

– Bushman, “Fire Bun A Weak Heart”

Trump’s Christmas Gift to Netanyahu

‘Twas the week before Christmas, and the whole world was talking about Jerusalem. US President Donald Trump, champion of religious right and unabashedly pro-Israel, announced that he was moving the United States’ embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The US Government called the move a recognition of “reality on the ground.” They cited their sovereign right to locate their embassy where they wanted, as well as a decades-old, oft-delayed Congressional decision to relocate the Embassy.

The only problem was that successive American, Israeli, Palestinian, Russian and European governments had called Jerusalem a “final status” issue – so sensitive that it should be decided only after other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process were settled. A United Nations Security Council resolution dating to 1980, “called on. . . [t]hose States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City.” Multiple UN resolutions forbade states from doing anything that would jeopardize the peace process by taking actions that would “alter[] or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem.”

But the announced move of the US embassy did just that. It was a recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was ecstatic. Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, was apoplectic. The Muslim world was furious. Clashes between Palestinians and Israelis in Gaza claimed 12 lives. The wider international community – including some the USA’s staunchest allies –was concerned about the impact such a move would have on peace, security, and the fabled “two-state solution” of a secure Israel and a secure Palestine living side-by-side, in peace.

This international concern quickly morphed into a United Nations resolution that reaffirmed international consensus on Jerusalem and declared the US embassy move – without ever naming the USA – as “null and void.” The meat of the resolution is in these three paragraphs:

Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,

Expressing in this regard its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,

Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council

Where past American administrations sought to downplay the significance of UN votes that they were likely to lose, the Trump White House decided to make it a cause célèbre, and devoted extraordinary diplomatic and political capital to altering the outcome.

The Result? 128 supported the resolution, in spite of the threats. Nine countries – including the US – lined up to vote “No.” 35 countries voted to “Abstain,” and another 21 apparently had something better to do at the time, failing to show up to vote altogether.

A Trump Bump? Tallying Up the Effects of Trump’s Gambit

The day after the vote, the US press styled the passage of the resolution as a “stinging rebuke” of Trump, a “dramatic rebuke,” as “Defying Trump,” and as a “resounding rejection” of Trump. Ambassador Haley, on the other hand, claimed some measure of victory in the number of countries that didn’t vote “yes” on the resolution. The reality was far more complex. The overwhelming majority of countries – close to 70% – could claim, with some justification, that they were simply voting in line with their long-standing views on the Palestine-Israel issue, Trump or no Trump.

A second subset of countries – about 16% of the UN Membership – would have a hard time convincing anyone that President Trump’s threats didn’t make them at least little wobbly in the knees.

Finally, in the “stinging rebuke” camp, a few countries – about 12% of the UN – certainly seemed to stiffen their spine in response to US pressure. However, even among that 12%, there are a number of plausible non-Trump reasons to explain their votes.

Within CARICOM, voting positions ran the gamut, from consistency, to a disturbing number of possible wobbles, to at least one country on whom the US threats had the opposite effect. More on CARICOM later.

Comparing Votes: One of These Things is Not Like the Other

Five years ago, the international community was faced with a far more vexing problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Whether to officially recognize Palestine as a state – albeit a “non-member, observer state” of the United Nations. The USA, then governed by President Obama, opposed the resolution. The US made no secret of its opposition to the resolution, and campaigned against it. However, as is typical of the stylistic differences between Obama and Trump, the USA’s 2012 anti-resolution efforts were far more respectful and decorous. The vote, however, was remarkably similar:

Now, it must be said that, all things being equal, it should’ve been easier to vote for the 2017 resolution than the 2012 one. The 2012 resolution was breaking new ground (international recognition of Palestinian statehood), while the 2017 one was simply restating settled and consistently-held positions from at least the last four decades. Nonetheless, the resolutions also serve as rough proxies for States’ positions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. You would expect most countries’ vote on the 2012 resolution to be replicated on the 2017 resolution.

The numbers bear out this theory: 132 of the UN’s 193 member states voted exactly the same way in 2012 as they did in 2017. “Yes” votes remained “Yes.” “No” votes stayed in the “No” column. Abstainers continued to abstain. One country – Ukraine – skipped both the 2012 and 2017 votes. For ease of analysis, we’ll say that this 68% of the UN membership was unmoved by President Trump’s added pressure.

That leaves us with the 61 countries whose vote changed between 2012 and 2017.

Five of those countries changed their vote from abstaining to not voting at all (Mongolia, Moldova, Samoa, San Marino, Tonga). Kiribati, on the other hand, skipped the 2012 vote but showed up to abstain on the 2017 resolution. I believe that skipping the vote altogether suggests that you might have heeded the sound of the Trumpet, but it’s hard to say. Most of those countries have tiny UN Missions. The vote was close to Christmas. It’s possible they’d already left town for the holidays. I’ll exclude those six countries as “inconclusive” and focus on the remaining 55.

Only one country in the entire 193-Member UN General Assembly made a barefaced, 180-degree switch from “Yes” to “No” between the 2012 and 2017 resolutions: Honduras. This is understandable. Honduras’ right-wing government just unabashedly stole an election, and is counting on the USA to continue turning a blind eye to that blatant fraud. If I were the Honduran President, I’d also be shining Trump’s shoes and taking out the White House garbage.

Every other country weakened or strengthened their position by a half-measure; moving from abstain/absent to yes/no or vice-versa.

31 countries weakened their vote in the face of the increased US pressure:

These are the countries that should have special seats at the Nikki Haley reception to celebrate Trump’s power. If they’d voted consistent with their 2012 positions, there could’ve been as many as 157 “Yes” votes instead of 128.

Some of these changed positions have obvious answers. Trump’s rhetorical assault on Mexico and Mexicans has them reluctant to engage the US on anything not related to NAFTA or the Wall. Myanmar is terrified that the USA will take greater interest in their on-going Rohingya genocide. South Sudan is almost entirely dependent on aid, and that aid is already under threat. Guatemala’s new President, Jimmy Morales, is a staunch right-winger who recently received an honorary doctorate from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is keen to strengthen Guatemala’s historically strong ties with Israel. He’s already announced his own plans to move Guatemala’s embassy to Jerusalem.

However, if you believe that Trump scared people into changing their vote on Jerusalem, start with this list.

On the other hand, if you’re looking to make a case that Trump was rebuked and defied, there is another, shorter list, that can help you make your case. In spite of the Trump/Haley pressure, the following 24 countries “strengthened” their vote relative to the 2012 baseline:

It’s fair to say that the European Union is less fond of Trump than Obama. Also, the EU is significantly invested in the Israel-Palestine peace process and is part of the Quartet that has always declared Jerusalem to be a final status issue. Many of the changes from “Abstain” to “Yes” probably reflect EU votes in support of their own interest in the peace process. Nine of the 24 “strengthened” votes are EU members.

One of the more interesting votes on this list is Canada’s “Abstain.” Many expected Prime Minister Trudeau to be more progressive than his predecessor, Stephen Harper. And, on this issue, he was: moving Canada’s vote from a “no” in 2012 to an “abstain” in 2017. The fact that Canada stopped short of a “Yes” vote may be rooted (like Mexico) in ongoing NAFTA renegotiations with the Trump administration, or in that fact that, on reflection, Trudeau’s progressiveness is limited to local issues (Marijuana, LGBT rights), and not global affairs.

So, was there a Trump bump? Was he resoundingly rejected by the international community? The answer is mixed. At the extremes, you can argue that 16% of the UN Membership “capitulated” to Trump, while 12% “poked him in the eye,” and the remainder ignored him. That is an overly simplistic summary of the numbers. However, for all the bombast and hyperbole, all the tweet storms and threats, a net of at least seven countries undeniably moved Trump’s way. The real impact of the threats was undoubtedly greater.

Here’s the problem with that threat: Well before the UN vote on Jerusalem, the Trump administration had already decided to radically slash US aid.

In March 2017, the White House released an official document called “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.” That document, published way before any brouhaha over the Jerusalem resolution, pledged to “Reduce[] funding to the UN and affiliated agencies,” to “Reduce[] funding for multilateral development banks, including the World Bank,” and “Refocus[] economic and development assistance to countries of greatest strategic importance to the U.S.” The cuts to the US aid budget were predicted to be 28%, or $10 billion less than 2017.

[The budget document also pledged to “Eliminate[] the Global Climate Change Initiative and fulfills the President’s pledge to cease payments to the United Nations’ (UN) climate change programs by eliminating U.S. funding related to the Green Climate Fund and its two precursor Climate Investment Funds.” But that’s a whole different blog posting.]

More tellingly, there was concrete evidence that the US Government had already drawn up plans to gut American aid globally. In an article called “The End of Foreign Aid As We Know It,” Foreign Policy magazine detailed a series of planned cuts to the American aid programme that would completely eliminate foreign assistance to many countries. Foreign Policy magazine quoted from a leaked 15-page State Department document that detailed massive cuts across the board. According to that document, cuts to the Caribbean include:

Setting aside the special case of Haiti for a moment, US aid to the Caribbean, in this document alone, is scheduled to be slashed from $62.52 million all the way down to $26.8 million – an almost 60% reduction. Most of that remaining money is in assistance in the field of health. Development assistance to Jamaica, Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean is scheduled to be cut to $0.00 in 2018.

That’s zero dollars.

Again, this document was leaked to Foreign Policy a full eight months before President Trump and Ambassador Haley started claiming that there was a link between the Jerusalem vote and aid.

Clearly, then, the White House and the State Department have already given considerable thought to cutting aid, and have decided where they want that aid to be cut. What they were looking for was a justification for their planned steep cuts to the aid budget. The Jerusalem vote was as good a justification as cover for the planned cuts.

Those countries hoping for a holiday aid miracle may soon realize that the Grinch had already stolen Christmas.

CARICOM: Cockroaches in the Fowl Fight?

Caribbean folk wisdom from Trinidad to Jamaica cautions that cockroaches should stay out of fowl parties and fights. A glance at how a divided CARICOM voted on the Jerusalem resolution suggests that more than one country may have elevated this local edict to the level of foreign policy.

Six CARICOM states kept their 2012 “Yes” vote as a “Yes” in 2017 (Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Suriname and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines). Both the Bahamas and Haiti remained consistent in abstaining both times.

Barbados strengthened its position, abstaining in 2012 and voting “Yes” in 2017 despite the increased pressure.

The remaining five CARICOM States: Antigua, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, and Trinidad all took a half-step back from their 2012 vote. Both St. Lucia and St. Kitts decided to skip the vote altogether. [In a post-hoc justification of her country’s absence, the Foreign Minister of St. Lucia certainly sounded as if her vote – if cast – would have sided with the USA.]

A few troubling stats about the CARICOM voting record on this matter:

While 68% of the wider General Assembly remained consistent from 2012 to 2017, only 57% of CARICOM states did.

Only 16% of the General Assembly weakened its stance from 2012 to 2017. However, 36% of CARICOM changed to a weaker posture.

CARICOM makes up 7% of the UN Membership. However, CARICOM states comprised 16% of the countries that adopted a weaker stance.

What does this disproportionate representation among the abstainers and absentees say about CARICOM? Depends on how you look at it. One answer could be that all five weakened votes came from countries that changed governments between 2012 and 2017. Maybe these governments, which collectively represent a slight rightward shift, philosophically, would also have abstained or absented themselves from the 2012 resolution if they had the chance.

Another answer could be that America’s toehold in the region is now more of a foothold. It is difficult to ignore the fact that the changed Jerusalem votes represent many of the same countries that led the charge to alter a CARICOM Heads’ decision regarding Venezuela, and to align themselves with a US-authored resolution that would have laid the groundwork for intervention.

Yet another answer could simply be that it was almost Christmas, diplomats and foreign policy advisors were heading home for the holidays, and no one saw the sense in antagonizing President Trump on an ultimately symbolic gesture.

What is undeniable, however, is that the US, and other great powers, may be looking anew at the region, to see if the previous reputation of CARICOM as principled and generally united on foreign affairs has been replaced by a more transactional, flexible, influence-able and uncoordinated foreign policy approach. Our perceived “wobbles” on the Israeli-Palestine issue, whether grounded in fact or circumstance, will cause us to be probed and pressured anew in the coming years.

This could be the first Trumpet
Might as well be the last
Many more will have to suffer
Many more will have to die
Don’t ask me why

– Bob Marley, “Natural Mystic”

]]>https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2017/12/29/sound-of-the-trumpet-intimidation-aid-caricom/feed/4camillog20141060x600-0ea42119085487b05457fde5473edc01NaughtynNice_List_16x95440390625_feab8a9520_bcompare-travel-insurance-plans2012 vs 2017Vote wekenersVote strengthenerfe769c3598c14f0b4b3d624a25843b8bVanishing AidT&amp;T sayings 006CARICOM votesFirst, do no harmhttps://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/first-do-no-harm/
https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/first-do-no-harm/#commentsThu, 29 Jun 2017 13:55:59 +0000http://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/?p=607Continue reading →]]>The ancient Greek physician Hippocrates is famously credited for cautioning that doctors must “first, do no harm” – a dictum that is drummed into the heads of medical students everywhere. The admonition is useful to healthcare professionals when considering interventions that, in the circumstances, may do more harm than good.

Students and practitioners of multilateral diplomacy receive no such advice. Although non-intervention is the central tenet of almost every formal grouping of sovereign states, it is frequently disregarded, often to disastrous effect. The understandable and well-meaning urge to “do something” when faced with human suffering is often exploited and manipulated by those whose motivations are far less altruistic. The examples are legion.

One narrative emerging from the recent meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS) is that the OAS – and more specifically, CARICOM – “failed” to come up with a response to the political crisis in Venezuela. The competing narrative is that CARICOM states “succeeded” in thwarting a US-led attempt at intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

The truth is far more complex, and compelling.

A TORTURED PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Diplomats often talk endlessly about procedure, and bury important substantive issues amid a thicket of arcane rules and vague statements. Nonetheless, in this case, a little procedural history may be useful. However, the important takeaway from this brief history is that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines never deviated from the position on Venezuela crafted by the CARICOM Heads of State and Government. Further, those advocating a modification of the Heads’ declaration were only able to muster the support of six of the 14 members of CARICOM.

In late May, leaders of the 14 members of CARICOM met in an extraordinary session to discuss the situation in Venezuela and consider a US-backed declaration that many deemed to be interventionist in tone and intent. Over the course of six hours, the CARICOM presidents and prime ministers hammered out a consensus declaration, which represented a delicate balance among competing interests, ideologies and priorities. The document lay at the intersection of leaders’ deeply-held convictions on democracy, human rights, imperialism, sovereignty, independence and non-intervention. It was presented to the OAS as a joint CARICOM declaration on Venezuela: 14 states speaking with one voice. Other Latin American countries supported the CARICOM position.

Three weeks later, in Mexico, an attempt to widen the circle of agreement beyond CARICOM and its initial Latin American supporters had the unfortunate impact of splitting CARICOM itself. The group of countries that proposed the original interventionist text – the Group of 14, equal in number, but greater in power than CARICOM – suggested negotiating a middle ground between CARICOM’s position and theirs. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines opposed this approach for a number of reasons.

First, and foremost, we did not feel that our leaders had either authorized a renegotiation of their consensus position or provided CARICOM with negotiating parameters and “red lines” to guide any revision of their three-week-old consensus. According to the CARICOM treaty, the Conference of Heads is the “supreme organ” of CARICOM, which is empowered to “determine and provide policy direction” for the Community. It was an act of hubris to believe that, without guidance, ambassadors could improve upon the language of the Heads of Government in such a manner as to retain the collective support of those Heads while simultaneously attracting the support of the United States, whose intentions regarding Venezuela have never been disguised.

Second, we were mindful that the original US-backed text carried an unmistakably interventionist intent. We are fundamentally against any explicit or implicit authorization for military intervention in the internal affairs of Venezuela. First, do no harm. There is an inherent danger in agreeing to dance on the head of a diplomatic pin with those whose interests are diametrically opposed to your own.

Nevertheless, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ objections were not sufficiently persuasive. A group of CARICOM Foreign Ministers authorized a three-ambassador team to negotiate with the Group of 14. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ further request that any renegotiated language be first considered and approved by the CARICOM Heads themselves also did not find favour with the wider group.

Fifteen minutes before the 2:00 p.m. commencement of an OAS meeting to discuss Venezuela, an email was circulated among CARICOM ambassadors, informing them that they should convene to discuss the revisions to the text that emanated from negotiations between the CARICOM 3 and the Group of 14. Because of the lack of notice and other logistical hurdles, the meeting never took place. As such, CARICOM never collectively read, considered or discussed the final substantive changes made to its Heads’ original declaration. The delegation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines saw the final revisions at the same time that it was informed – by Guatemala, the chair of the meeting – that CARICOM had withdrawn its original text and substituted it with the negotiated revision.

Other members of CARICOM expressed similar surprise that they had not seen the final text in advance, while others raised more substantive objections to the revised language.

As a result, the revision of the original Heads’ document enjoyed the affirmative support of only six of CARICOM’s 14 members. CARICOM unity was fractured in pursuit of greater buy-in from the United States, Canada and the other Latin American countries. However, the document still fell short of the number of votes required for adoption by the OAS.

In the midst of the confusion and dissention over the substance and procedure surrounding the rushed revision of the CARICOM Heads’ declaration, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines asked that the OAS also consider approving the original, unaltered CARICOM document. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines resubmitted the CARICOM Heads’ document in its own name – without amendment – for formal consideration. Interestingly, a majority of CARICOM states could not see it fit to support a declaration crafted by their own presidents and prime ministers, choosing instead to abstain from voting.

QUESTIONS A-BEGGING

The events leading up to the rejection of intervention, the defeat of the declaration, and the split in CARICOM beg certain key questions. Why abandon a document that enjoyed the support of 14 CARICOM states for one supported by only six? If the revised text contained only cosmetic revisions, as alleged by its supporters, why didn’t they support the original CARICOM document when it was clear that theirs was defeated? If the overriding motivation was for the OAS to speak collectively on Venezuela, what inclusion or omission from the CARICOM Heads was so objectionable to prevent its collective support? What conditions had materially changed on the ground between May 31 and June 20 to make the CARICOM Heads’ original text unpalatable to the very CARICOM countries whose leaders had crafted it?

‘LEST WE FORGET

The concepts of “human rights” and “democracy” are so powerful, and so engrained in the psyche of the Caribbean civilization – and rightly so – that the mere utterance of those words is sometimes enough to foreclose debate. That was the calculus of the countries that frequently invoked those phrases when arguing in favour of a punitive and interventionist OAS position on Venezuela. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and other states that spoke of sovereignty and imperialism were accused of using the bygone language of a bygone era. The US and its allies were negotiating in “good faith,” we were told, with only the defence of democracy as their motivation.

The Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has consistently and vociferously defended state sovereignty and opposed intervention in the domestic affairs of states, irrespective of its relationship with the state. We opposed the threats made against the Jamaican government during the “Dudus” extradition affair. We opposed the kidnapping and exile of President Aristide in Haiti. We opposed intervening in the legal and political affairs of St. Kitts and Nevis, when protesters were agitating against the government of then-Prime Minister Denzil Douglas. We opposed attempts by European governments to restrict the movements and activities of democratically elected President Bouterse of Suriname. We opposed attempts at the United Nations to grant regional bodies the same rights as sovereign states. We pushed for dialogue instead of military solutions in Syria. We opposed intervention in Iraq and Libya.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is justifiably proud of its principled history in defence of sovereignty and non-intervention. We are proud that we played a part in the crafting of a CARICOM consensus three weeks ago, and we are equally proud that attempts to dilute that consensus with interventionist intent did not find favour.

BACK TO THE HEADS

This article has stopped studiously short of the outer limit of dirty laundry already aired by other CARICOM states and insiders. Much more can and should be said, starting, hopefully in private, among our Heads of State and Government at the 38th Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM, which is scheduled for 4 – 6 July in Grenada. Discussion will no doubt include an examination of subsequent US-led events at the same OAS meeting that were so nakedly improper as to lose the support of even some CARICOM backers of the revised declaration.

There, in private, among the Heads who crafted the original consensus; motivated by principle; and steeped in the longstanding ethos of Barbadian national hero Errol Barrow to be the friend of all and the satellite of none, our leaders will have the opportunity to once again rise to the occasion and speak with one voice on this complex issue, remembering always that their actions must first do no harm.

Talking with Dr. James Fletcher, former Minister of Sustainable Development of Saint Lucia, about the decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. How does the American withdrawal affect the fight against climate change, and where does it leave Small Island Developing States? Whill companies, municipalities, and US states pick up the slack for President Trump, and if so, has he won his first negotiation? What should Caribbean countries do now that America has scuttled the Paris Accord?

Talking with Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, about the political crisis in Venezuela. Is the diplomatic battle over the fate of the Bolivarian Revolution a clash of competing principles, or an age-old hegimonic struggle, lubricated by oil? What is the Caribbean Community’s role in defending principle and fostering dialogue? What’s at stake for the Caribbean generally, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in particular, if the crisis escalates?

]]>https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2017/06/08/venezuela-oil-sovereignty-and-the-caricom-firewall/feed/0camillog2014Could You be Loved?https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/could-you-be-loved/
https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/could-you-be-loved/#commentsThu, 07 Apr 2016 00:33:47 +0000http://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/?p=482Continue reading →]]>Don’t let them fool yaOr even try to school ya
Oh no!We’ve got a mind of our ownSo go to hell if what you’re thinking is not right
– Bob Marley, “Could You be Loved“

Once upon a time, when America was as great as Donald Trump wants it to be again, professional and college sports were the near-exclusive domain of white athletes. Mainstream media coverage of sports back then was dominated by old white men, a condition that largely persists to the present day.

And back then, when athletes and commentators were a racially homogenous group, a stereotype was born: The “Dumb Jock.” The athlete as moron – physically gifted, affable, capable of awe-inspiring acts. But dumb as a post. The stereotype was likely created by the pens of sportswriters who wanted to create a line of demarcation between the dumb jocks and the frustrated poets and failed novelists that covered their feats.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the 21st Century. Black people began breaking the colour barrier, one sport at a time. Boxing. Athletics. Baseball. Basketball. American Football. And our brainy sportswriters had to recalibrate their hierarchy of intelligence, by adding the new element of racial superiority. So, voila! The Dumb Jock stereotype evolved. White athletes, formerly bumbling oafs, became cunning tacticians. They were portrayed as cerebral, analytical combatants who played their sport “the right way,” and achieved their success through hard work, training, and dedication to fundamentals. The Black athletes became the new Dumb Jocks, but the caricature was mutated to portray them in a harsher light than their white predecessors ever had to endure. Black athletes might occasionally be “articulate,” they played “instinctively,” didn’t need to hone their skills, and relied exclusively on their “freakish gifts,” and “natural talents.”

When the trickle of Black athletes became a torrent, the press and the white sporting establishment built a firewall around certain prized positions. In American football, only white athletes had the capacity to play quarterback. Only white athletes were smart enough to be basketball point guards. Or golfers. Or tennis pros.

CRICKET AND THE DUMB JOCK

Which brings us to cricket.

The Brits didn’t originally apply the dumb jock stereotypes to cricketers. This is because cricket was the sport of middle and upper classes. W.G. Grace, one of the earliest and greatest exponents of the game, was a doctor. In the 1700s, the Prince of Wales was an early fan of the game. And, of course, the British used cricket as a unifying cultural export throughout its realms and Commonwealth territories over the years. Early test matches between England and Australia took on special significance. Brilliant players, like Don Bradman were knighted for their cricketing exploits. Cricket was a “gentleman’s game” and the gentlemen who played it were respected and esteemed.

But then the West Indies started playing cricket. And the cricketing version of the dumb jock was born.

The West Indies didn’t just play cricket. They played “Calypso Cricket.” To us, that term is a compliment, because Calypso is a complex social, political and entertainment art form, as well as a unifying force across the region. But make no mistake, from the tongues and pens of British and Australian journalists, “Calypso Cricket” was a put down. It denoted a simplistic, childlike style of play. Joyous, yes, but unconcerned with the complexities and intellectual challenges of “real cricket.” Whenever the phrase “Calypso Cricket” was written or uttered, the words “rum” and “dance” were not far behind. Before the West Indies became world beaters, “Calypso Cricket” was the explanation: While the Windies might be good for occasional flashes of athletic brilliance, they’d never get it together to win a Test series. They were affable, lovable, happy-go-lucky losers. When the tables turned and the West Indians began winning matches, they still weren’t playing “real” cricket. They were winning on the brutish strength of their intimidatory pace bowlers and muscular batsmen who slogged the ball out of the ground. When the West Indies became the most dominant cricketing team in the world in the 1980s and 1990s, the sporting press asked the question: How much tactical or strategic skill is involved in winning matches if you have four giant fast bowlers and a bunch of hard-hitting batsmen who disregard the “proper way” to bat?

The Windies were winning, yes. But they were winning on the strength of their overwhelming natural physical gifts, and in spite of their rum-swilling, dancing, unintelligent style of play.

As the West Indies’ cricketing fortunes declined, the derisive stereotypes were again used to explain our fall. The journalists declared that this was because of the new focus of the Australians and Brits and New Zealanders on training harder and improved athletic support. These teams were now able to neutralise the Caribbean physical superiority. Of course, lacking the intellectual capacity to comprehend the intricacies of the game, or implement the structures necessary to succeed in the modern game, we were doomed to eternal failure.

SHUT UP AND DANCE FOR ME

But on their way to cricketing irrelevance, another funny thing happened: The West Indian under-19, Women’s and Men’s teams all won 2016 World Cups in their respective Twenty20 tournaments, the most modern version of the venerable game. And just like that, the old stereotypes were dusted off to marginalize our achievements.

I was struck by the on-field, post-match interviews of the victorious West Indian and defeated Australian women. The Australian skipper was asked sober tactical questions about the pitch, the run rate, the bowling, etc. When the two West Indian heroes of the match were interviewed, the interviewer quickly dispensed with preliminary questions and demanded that the ladies teach her their victory dance. “Do you think I can learn your dance? Show me how to do your dance!” The young women, unfortunately, happily obliged their interviewer.

The journalists on the ESPNcricinfo.com website got into the act early, and in disgusting ways. British journalist Mark Nicholas, in his pre-tournament analysis, dismissed the West Indies as “short of brains” and therefore unlikely to win the Men’s T20 title. After Darren Sammy passionately called him out on his comments, he apologized (even while noting that “the rest of us can almost taste the rum“). But his original comment was an honest window into the soul of the media’s view of the West Indian athletes and cricketers.

It’s worth reading excerpts of just how Kimber described these three classes of cricketer:

If we break down the three types of modern T20 batting, we have batsmen, strikers and hitters, with obvious overlapping in some cases…

The batsmen are pretty easy to spot: Kane Williamson, Smith, Joe Root and Virat Kohli are the best of them. They can play all the shots, they find ways to score on all the pitches, they hustle between the wickets, make the bowlers all but irrelevant, and generally don’t come out all guns blazing…

The strikers are players like Yuvraj Singh, Martin Guptill, Sharjeel Khan, Soumya Sarkar and Angelo Mathews. They can hit clean and long, but they usually don’t slog, or don’t try to hit; it is part of their natural batting style…

And then the hitters. Cricket’s cavemen. They clear front legs and hack at the ball like it’s done them a mischief…

West Indies have a team of these hitters. Perhaps more hitters per capita than any line-up in cricket history. They have Denesh Ramdin and Lendl Simmons as strikers, and Marlon Samuels as their proper batsman. The rest hit.

So, if you’re keeping track at home, the West Indies are a team of cavemen. More cavemen than at any point in cricket history.

Cavemen.

Who are short of brains.

Who “hack at the ball.”

Any questions?

After the victory, former Australian cricketer Shane Warne – no friend of Windies cricket, and less so of Marlon Samules – decided to do his part to reinforce the stereotype. “Bring on some dancing haha” he tweeted.

The Sidney Morning Herald trumpeted “The Rebirth of Calypso Cricket,” as did some British press services. The Morning Herald article is required reading for its almost poetic ability to simultaneously damn and praise: “Now, the game has gone calypso, and as it turns out, the Windies were there, waiting for it.” Or how about this nugget: “As for style, you would have to say it is naive. How else could you describe a team that in pursuit of a modest target fritters away early wickets, lets dot balls mount insouciantly, saunters between wickets and leaves themselves 19 to get from the last over, and gets them anyway, with two balls to spare?”

It’s all a load of crap. Demeaning, bigoted crap.

CHRIS GAYLE: CAVEMAN

Let’s take Chris Gayle. Gayle is often portrayed as Caveman-in-Chief because of his utter dominance of the T20 format. Very little technique, sniff the so-called purists. He’s just big and strong and slogging through this “instant cricket” format. His lack of technique and focus would be exposed in the more traditional test cricket format, they proclaim.

It’s all a lie.

Chris Gayle may be a mercenary. He may be a bat-for-hire who sells his talents to the highest bidder from Mumbai to Middlesex to Melbourne. He may have decided to specialize in T20 cricket in the twilight years of his career.

But Caveman Chris? Never.

Gayle has 15 Test cricket centuries to his name. A high score of 333 and an average of 42 runs per innings. In 2009, against Australia, he grafted through a seven-hour 165 not-out in one test match and a lightning-fast 70-ball century in the next. This is a man with the skill, the versatility and yes, the intellect, to succeed at the highest levels. And he has proven it over a lengthy international career, now in its 16th year.

You know who else has a high score of 333 and a batting average of 42? England’s Graham Gooch, who was revered as a brilliant and hardworking cricketing tactician. (“Gooch has always believed that the difference between ordinariness and excellence lies in hard work“). Cricketing fans may know the name Sir Colin Cowdrey, whose name is spoken in reverence by the British (“unbridled genius unsurpassed for both merit and technique“). He, statistically, is only slightly better than Gayle. Or maybe you’ve heard of the great Mike Atherton, the English opening batsman who Cricinfo lauds with all the adjectives that are reserved for non-West Indians: “Gutsy and stubborn, single-minded and sledger-proof, Mike Atherton was an opener in the classic English tradition…” Chris Gayle, our Caveman clubber, is superior to Atherton in almost every statistical Test cricket category.

PLAYING THE RIGHT WAY

In T20 cricket, commentators and journalists focus obsessively on the “dot ball.” A “dot ball,” for those who don’t know, is a delivery from the bowler that the batsman fails to score a run from. It gets its name from the “dot” that scorekeepers would put in their scorebooks to record each such delivery. In a T20 match, spanning a mere 120 balls per inning, the dot ball is fetishized. According to the commentators, a team facing 120 balls must score from as many balls as possible. Even if it’s just a single run. The sign of a thinking batsman, they say, is his ability to “find the gaps,” “rotate the strike,” and “keep the scoreboard ticking over,” though his cerebral calculations designed to push the ball to open gaps on the field.

The West Indies were derided for receiving too many “dot balls.” It was cited as a limitation of style and substance. It was evidence of their inability to “play the right way.” The West Indies’ focus on hitting fours and sixes would be their downfall.

Except it wasn’t.

The West Indies scored more runs than their opponents in all but one meaningless game against Afghanistan. Opponents – like England, South Africa and India – who were acknowledged masters at playing the right way.

Let’s oversimplify things: An over is six balls long. And if you get a single for every delivery you face, you’ll score six runs in the over, and 120 runs in the match. But if you set yourself up to hit two fours per over, you’ll score 8 runs per over, despite the four “dot balls” in between. And you’ll make 160 runs in the match, crushing the thinking batsman and his eradication of dot balls.

In a game created under the premise of scoring the most possible runs in the shortest possible time period, the anti-Windies media wanted us to feel ashamed of our very rational and well thought out tactical approach of focusing on the most profitable scoring shots instead of the least profitable shots. Instead of finding gaps among 11 fielders, we recognised that there are no fielders beyond the boundary rope, so we hit the ball there. We made a risk-reward assessment and decided to pursue the riskier, but more profitable approach to run scoring. This isn’t dumb. It’s borderline genius.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
– E.F. Schumacher, “Small is Beautiful“

It’s one of the greatest batting feats ever seen in T20 cricket. But of course it was cited as just another example of Caveman cricket. What can a crafty, hardworking, thinking bowler like Ben Stokes do in the face of such brute force? The guy with the club beat the guy with the brain.

But anyone who thinks hitting four consecutive balls for six is easy should try it. Even if your five-year-old daughter is bowling you full-tosses with a tennis ball. It aint easy. And if you think Brathwaite is some unthinking sporting Neanderthal, read his interview about the legendary performance:

In the last over, there are only two plans he could have had – slower balls into the wicket, or full and straight. Knowing England, they pride themselves on being a good death-bowling team, especially with the yorkers. It was very important to get away the first one or two balls and put the pressure back on him. Get the target down to a manageable score. But yeah, the two plans were going to be into the wicket, forcing me to hit into the big side, or yorkers. We don’t think he hit the mark as well as he would have liked to, but I still want to give God thanks for helping me to execute my plan the way I wanted to and get the balls over the boundary

I knew it was basically two plans he could have used, which was basically the yorker, either wide or straight, or a slower ball into the wicket to try to hit me to the long side. So I was prepared. And from watching the guys scoring runs in the tournament – I like to watch a lot of cricket – those guys stay really still, and those guys react well, and I just wanted to stay still, forget the crowd, forget the occasion, and just concentrate on watching the ball.

You got all that? Brathwaite had a plan, which he executed. He had also considered his opponent’s plan, and what he needed to do to negate it. Brathwaite was prepared for his moment. He had studied lots of match footage, and in studying the footage, he decided on a particular style and course of action.

Now remember that Brathwaite is only 27 years old. That he was playing in his first T20 finals. That he was in a foreign country. That 70,000 screaming fans were surrounding him. That the hopes of a region were resting on his inexperienced shoulders.

But he was focused on his plan. How’s that for Caveman Calypso Cricket?

BLACKWASH

I’ve written 2,500 words so far and haven’t used the word “racism” yet. Here it comes.

Racism in sports coverage is nothing new. It’s well documented, particularly in America, where racist code-words have been elevated to an art form.

Race and West Indies cricket are so thoroughly intertwined as to be eternally united. “Race and Cricket” is probably an undergraduate course at the University of the West Indies. CLR James was writing about race and cricket five decades ago. Google “Frank Worrell” to learn how he broke the colour barrier against a West Indies Cricket Board that assumed a Black Man could not lead our regional team. Watch the “Fire in Babylon” documentary for a taste of the way that legends like Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd and Michael Holding became the physical embodiments of Black pride and power when they became the only known group of Black people in world history to consistently beat white people at their own game.

From the first day we covered our black skin in cricketing “whites,” trotted out onto a field and beat colonialists at the game they taught us, the racial undertones of cricket have been unmistakable. Far greater writers that I could ever hope to be have shared their insights on this topic for decades.

But our dominance or ubiquity on the field of play has never translated to similar prevalence as journalists, broadcasters and commentators. For every Ian Bishop and Michael Holding behind the microphone, there are a hundred old white commentators, perpetuating stereotypes for a new generation of listeners. There are a hundred Mark Nicholases calling us brainless; a hundred Jarrod Kimbers to call us Cavemen; and a hundred interviewers and tweets to remind us to dance, smile and drink some rum. Leave the grit and discipline and planning and training and thinking to others.

Darren Sammy, the leader of men who has twice willed his teams to T20 glory, said that Mark Nicholas’ “short of brains” comment angered him, and that it was “really out of order.”

The Long, Tortured History of Absentee Parliamentarians

One hundred and ninety-five years ago, in the venerable House of Lords, the Earl of Shaftesbury “laid on the table the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the precedents relative to the enforcement of the attendance of peers during great and solemn occasions.” The noble peers apparently played hooky a little too often for the Honourable Earl’s liking.

And so began the long tradition of using fines, or the threat of custody, to get absentee parliamentarians to drag their behinds to work.

Fast-forward another 168 years and 3500+ miles to Washington D.C., for the exiting story of 46 Republicans who boycotted the US Senate in an effort to block campaign finance laws. The frustrated Democratic Majority Leader said that “Senators are supposed to be grown-ups, not kids.They’re supposed to come to the Senate floor to vote.” He moved a motion to compel the attendance of the Republicans.

And so, in the wee hours of 25 February 1988, the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms used the power of 46 arrest warrants to round up, one by one, the obstructionist Republicans. One distinguhed Senator “fled down a hallway and escaped arrest.” Another, Senator Bob Packwood, hid in his office and tried to force the door closed. According to the Los Angeles Times:

And so, dramatically, “Packwood was carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by three plainclothes officers,” marring the decorum of the Senate of the world’s greatest democracy. It harkened back to the year 1941, when similar arrests by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms dragged Tennessee Senator Kenneth McKellar from his own apartment to the Capitol to participate in a vote on controversial civil rights legislation.

As recently as 2011, 14 Wisconsin State Senators fled the state entirely and camped out across state lines in Illinois in order to avoid possible arrest. Their crime? The 14 Democrats were boycotting parliament in an attempt to block passage of the Republican Governor’s budget. It wasn’t clear whether they could be arrested for their absenteeism, so they made a run for the border.

Who said that the life of a parliamentarian was easy?

Of course, arrest warrants and $30,000 fines (£100 in 1820 would be worth as much as EC$30,787.18 today) are extreme responses to an age-old problem: How do you get parliamentarians – who are paid to participate in debates, committees and votes on legislation – to actually show up and do their job?

It is a question of current particular importance these days in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Seventeen months ago, St. Clair Leacock announced that “from here on, with a one-seat majority, the New Democratic Party is not cooperating with you on anything, save and except the next general elections.” That “non cooperation” included parliamentary boycotts, failure to attend select committees, and refusal to participate in “Question Time” when they actually did sit in the House of Assembly. Of course, once the elections came and went, the Opposition still found itself on the outside, looking in. But, instead of accepting the will of the people, the NDP doubled-down on its pre-election rhetoric of parliamentary absenteeism and obstructionism:

From a strictly political perspective, it’s all a bit of silly theater. You may find it praiseworthy or you may find it pathetic, depending on your own particular political persuasion. But the theatrics have far more grave consequences from the perspective of our young democracy, of building and respecting the institutions of governance, or, simply, from the question of whether you can ethically accept money for work you refuse to do.

These questions have troubled me for a while. I’ve blogged about it. I’ve mused about it on Facebook. I’ve raised it as an issue in the Parliament. For my troubles, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition thinks that I “need to kneel down and beg God pardon.” St. Clair Leacock, the Baddest Parliamentarian on the Planet, suggested that I shouldn’t talk about the sergeant-at-arms compelling attendance, I should instead come and try get him myself.

Well, then. I’m glad we’re all ready to have such a mature conversation on the issue.

All Around the World, the Same Song

Truth is, the issue of what do with absentee Parliamentarians is not a Vincy issue or an issue relegated to history books. Take a peek at headlines and editorial pages around the world and you’ll see, for example:

I could go on, but you get the point: Unlike Ju-C, parliamentary absenteeism is not a Vincy Thing. It’s a worldwide thing. Similarly, the idea of applying legal sanction to absentee parliamentarians does not usually require God’s pardon or necessitate pissing contests with rostrum ruffians and wannabe bad men. Normally, a little legislative action is enough.

I’ve blogged back in 2014 about the NDP’s “White Flag of Non-Cooperation” and the importance of parliamentary presence and debate. I said then that “It is clear that the occasional parliamentary boycott has its place in the political bag of tricks that an opposition has at its disposal. There is nothing wrong with the selective use of boycotts to make a point.” I stand by that. There is no opposition worth its salt that hasn’t dramatically walked out of parliament to make a point from time to time. But if your plan is to completely abdicate your parliamentary responsibilities, then you must know that there will be consequences.

In “real life,” if you never come to work, you’ll lose your job. The SVG Standing Orders contemplate firing MPs for long stretches of absenteeism by vacating their seat (more on that later). But, also, as any employee can attest, if you skip work one day and it’s neither a vacation day nor a sick day, you won’t get paid. If you try to accept pay for work you didn’t do, you are, at best, unethical. At worst, you’re a plain old garden-variety thief. In a country with limited resources, it is doubly unethical to brag about your intention to skip Parliament, then show up on payday expecting your full salary.

It don’t work so.

I Fought the Law, and the Law Won

The links to the headlines above hint that there are rules and laws linking parliamentary presence to parliamentary pay. It may be useful to take a glance at some of those laws before thinking about whether any similar law is needed or feasible in SVG.

Author Marc Van der Hulst wrote a useful book called The Parliamentary Mandate: A Global Comparative Study(pdf). In it, Van der Hulst examines, among other things, parliamentary rules around the world that deal with attendance of members. He starts off by saying that “[m]ost parliaments impose some formal rule of attendance, both at plenary sittings and committee meetings,” but that the observance of that rule is oftentimes little more than “a ‘moral’ obligation.” However, many Parliaments buttress this moral obligation with financial penalties. According to Van der Hulst:

Forfeiture of part of a member’s salary (or supplementary allowances) is undoubtedly the most common penalty for absence without a valid reason. It is imposed in a large number of countries (Costa Rica, Cyprus, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Jordan, Luxembourg, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Uruguay).

Financial penalties are usually proportionate to the length of a member’s absence or the number of meetings that a member fails to attend.

What constitutes “absence” also varies. Some parliaments penalize you for not marking your name in a register of attendance. Some link it to participation in committee meetings. Others calculate attendance based on how often you are present to vote on bills. Others still offer some combination of all of these criteria. Let’s take a quick glance at some of these tools, shall we?

Canada

Section 55 of the Parliament of Canada Act provides a “sessional allowance” of $40,200 per year. According to section 57 of the Act, if you’re absent without an excuse while Parliament is in session, you’re liable to a fine of $120 (EC$230) per day:

Deductions for non-attendance

57 (1) A deduction at the rate of $120 per day shall be made from the sessional allowance of a member of either House of Parliament for every day beyond 21 on which the member does not attend a sitting of that House if it sits on that day.

Interestingly, section 59 of the Act also allows the Parliament to set even stricter penalties for non-attendance:

Stricter provisions by regulation of either House

59 The Senate or the House of Commons may make regulations, by rule or by order, rendering more stringent on its own members the provisions of this Act that relate to the attendance of members or to the deductions to be made from sessional allowances.

It seems that the Canadian Parliament has indeed agreed to stricter penalties, since the news media is reporting that the penalty is now $250 (EC$480) per day.

Germany

The German Parliament is called the Bundestag. In the Members of the Bundestag Act(pdf), their attendance policy is enforced through Section 14 – “Reduction of the expense allowance.” In the Bundestag, members of Parliament must sign an attendance register when they show up for work. According to the Act:

If a Member of the Bundestag does not enter his or her name in the register, 100 euros [EC$294] shall be deducted from his or her expense allowance. The amount of the reduction shall be increased to 200 euros [EC$588] if a Member who has not been granted leave of absence fails to enter his or her name in the attendance register on the day of a plenary sitting.

But there is also a penalty for not voting on legislation. The same section of the Bundestag Act says:

A Member of the Bundestag who fails to cast a vote by voting card or roll-call shall have 100 euros [EC$294] deducted from his or her monthly expense allowance. This shall not apply if the President has granted the Member leave of absence.

France

The bastion of liberty views participation in Parliament as a duty to the republic. The Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (pdf) penalize failure to show up for votes and failure to attend committee meetings:

Article 159(3)

. . . an M.P. who has taken part, in the course of a session, in less than two thirds of public ballots held . . . shall forfeit one third of the parliamentary allowance for a period equal to the duration of the session; if the same M.P. has taken part in less than half of the ballots this forfeit shall be doubled.

Article 42

(1) Attendance of committee members at committee meetings is obligatory.

. . .

(3) If a member is absent more than twice in a month, taking into account meetings of the committee which are held whilst the House is sitting and/or the presence of the M.P. at another standing committee, each subsequent absence of a committee member at a meeting of the committee convened, . . ., shall be liable to a deduction of 25% in his monthly working allowance.

(1) If a Member is absent for 15 or more consecutive sitting days of the Assembly or the Council, without the leave of the House, the Member loses his/her seat.

(2) If a Member is absent from 3 consecutive meetings of a committee to which he/she is appointed as a full Member, outside of a sanctioned absence agreed to by the Member’s political party, a sanction may be applied to the Member by either the Assembly or the Council to the effect of a fine of R1000 [EC$167] for each day of absence.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Speaker and Parliament were embarrassed when they realized that their antiquated law capped the penalty for MPs’ absences at $10 per day. Member of Parliament Chris Carter was apparently chronically absent from Parliament, but the Speaker was legally constrained as to how much he could punish Carter’s truancy (Carter apparently claimed to be ill, but was seen at the gym and participating in radio call-in programmes). According to the New Zealand Herald:

[The Speaker] said it was important that MPs were seen to attend the House.

“Their first duty is to the House,” [the Speaker] said.

“I recognise that that the penalty is small, but this does not mean that I do not take the attendance of members seriously. While members draw a parliamentary salary they should attend sittings of the House.”

Again, I could go on and on, but you see where I’m going: There are laws and rules around the world, in established Parliaments and respected democracies, that impose financial penalties on truant MPs. Some of these fines are daily penalties, usually on the order of EC$150 – $600. Some are based on a percentage of overall salary or allowances, usually 25% – 60%, though in some Eastern European parliaments you can theoretically lose your entire salary if you stay away long enough. Some link absence to voting, some to committee meetings, and some to just showing up each day. It varies.

Every Posse Must Work

So having completed my world parliamentary tour, the natural questions are “would it work in SVG?” Indeed, “should it work in SVG?” My answers are Yes, and, unfortunately, Yes again.

Let’s get a three points out of the way up front:

I. The first point is that parliamentary absences are already deeply offensive to Vincentian law. Ours is one of the few Parliaments that can actually kick you straight out of your duly-elected constituency if you are absent. Our Constitution says:

(29)(3) A member shall also vacate his seat in the House-

(a) if he is absent from the sittings of the House for such period and in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the rules of procedure of the House;

And the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly say:

74(2) If any Senator or Elected Member is absent from the House for more than three consecutive meetings without leave of the Speaker obtained in writing before the expiration of that period, the Clerk shall, immediately after the third shuch meeting direct the attention of the Member concerned to the provisions of this Order. If the Member continues to be absent for the next three meetings, then, unless before the expiration of the last of those meetings the Member has obtained the leave of the Speaker in writing or unless the House upon motion made without notice has granted him leave of absence, he shall vacate his seat under section 29(3)(a) of the Constitution.

So our rules and laws already contemplate firing truant parliamentarians. There is no greater sanction that outright dismissal. Clearly, our founding fathers thought that skipping Parliament was a big deal, that should be discouraged in the strongest possible manner. All I’m suggesting is an intermediate step between your first absence and your ultimate dismissal.

Pg. 31 of the 2016 Estimates. One Leader of the Opposition, six other elected opposition MPs, and two opposition senators are drawing money from those pots. But they haven’t come to work yet

Parliamentarians in SVG don’t get paid much relative to their Caribbean colleagues, but it adds up. This year, we’re going to spend a couple million dollars on the salaries and allowances of parliamentarians. Given that the Government has only one more MP and two more Senators than the Opposition side, almost half of that money is going to the absent NDP members.

It’s not right.

II.The second point that’s important to note is that all of the examples that I listed of global parliaments involved “full-time” legislatures. That is, in Germany, France, Canada, etc., Parliament sits every single day. In SVG, outside of the annual budget debate, Parliament meets maybe once or twice per month. Select Committees take up another day or two per month. Being required to sit in the House of Assembly a couple days per month is not onerous. Most opposition Parliamentarians and most Senators have second jobs. Indeed, based on salary alone, you’d be fair to consider Parliamentarian as their second job, because many earn more money in their “main” occupation.

Why does the occasional nature of the Vincy Parliament matter? It matters because it all but eliminates the excuse that MPs had “other” or “more important” things to do on the days that Parliament actually sits. An Elected MP should have a constituency office. He or she will be expected to meet people, visit areas in his or her constituency, advocate, negotiate and act on behalf of citizens in a whole variety of ways. All of these things are important, and definitely part of the job of an elected MP. But since Parliament sits relatively infrequently in SVG, almost all of those things can be scheduled around Parliamentary sittings. Your “other” responsibilities are not generally valid excuses for Parliamentary absences.

Also, because Parliament is only going to meet about 12-25 times per year, the presence of members in the SVG House of Assembly is far more important than those in assemblies that meet every day. Every meeting of our House involves question time, a debate on legislation, and voting. Many, if not most, bills go through all of their readings in a single sitting. So MPs’ presence is vital. Similarly, MPs’ absence should be more harshly penalized than those parliaments that meet every day.

III.The third point is that no parliamentary rule that I’ve seen would excuse a mass boycott or political protest as a legitimate grounds to avoid penalties. From that first 1820 resolution that I quoted way back at the beginning of this posting, you’ll see that the excuses for absences have always been personal to an individual member – illness, death in the family, travel on state business, etc. In other words, none of these laws and rules even contemplate the possibility that an entire opposition could legitimately absent itself from parliament. In any parliament that penalizes absentee MPs, there is absolutely no doubt that the NDP’s current behaviour would attract fines.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

So how would a “No Work, No Pay” rule look in SVG? If it were up to me (and it’s not), I’d make sure that the following elements were involved:

Showing up for five minutes is not “presence” in Parliament: Given the occasional nature of our Parliamentary sittings, and the Opposition’s (legally incorrect) view that just showing up for the first five minutes inoculates them against penalties, any new rule should precisely define what action or inaction will draw a penalty. Me? I’d require that parliamentarians be present for some minimum designated portion of the hours of sitting. And, like many other parliamentary rules, I’d say that if you miss a vote, you’re absent.

Skipping committees? OK, skip your pay: The current opposition is notorious for avoiding committee meetings, even before their current boycott strategy. It’s embarrassing, and it indicates a contempt for the critical lawmaking function that they’re supposed to hold. In my book, skipping any portion of a committee meeting would constitute an absence, unless excused by the Speaker.

Don’t want to name committee members? OK, the Speaker will name them for you: There are parliamentary committees that do important work in our nation’s governance. For example, there is a Public Accounts Committee, mandated by our Constitution. There is a Finance Committee, which considers the Estimates. There are Select Committees on bills, and according to the Standing Orders, those Select Committees “shall be so constituted as to ensure so far as is possible, that the balance of parties in the House is reflected in the Committee.”

Traditionally, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are invited to name members to these various committees. The problem is that the Leader of the Opposition routinely refuses to name any members, so the committees often proceed as one-sided all-government affairs – in possible violation of the rules and the law.

Nothing in the law says that the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are the only ones who can choose committee members. If they refuse to name members, the Speaker should step up and select members on his own authority. If those Speaker-selected members fail to show up for committee meetings, fine them.

Six absences are too many before you lose your seat: The current Standing Orders say that if you miss six sittings of Parliament, you lose your seat. After three absences, you get a warning from the Clerk of the House. After three more absences, you lose your seat. The problem with the six-absence rule in our Vincy context is that, given the infrequency of our house meetings, a truant parliamentarian could skip six to eight months of meetings before this penalty kicked in. I’d reduce the six absences to four (two before the Clerk’s warning, and two after). This would tighten the rules and make them more in keeping with our parliamentary realities.

How much is too much?

After these basic principles, you get down to the question of how much money should be levied as a penalty? Should it be a fixed fine, or a portion of ones salary? There are arguments both ways, and I really don’t have a preference. All I’ll suggest is that the fines be stiff enough to act as a deterrent, and that they should escalate with each successive unexcused absence. Also, I’d make unelected Senators pay a stiffer penalty, proportionally, since their main function is to sit in Parliament, unlike elected MPs who have constituency matters to tend to (more on that below).

A word on Senators:

Back in October 2013, when I first became a Senator, I said this in my first address to the House of Assembly:

[The Senate] was created to deliver a more sober and thorough reflection on legislative processes than MPs; who have representational demands and political points to score that are far more immediate than those in the Senatorial ranks. Unfortunately, Senators have been very often indistinguishable from MPs on the Parliamentary floor in both their style and the substance of their contributions. And that is unfortunate, because it begs the question of why are we here? We the Senators. Because if we do not add value to this discussion; if we do not add perspective; then we are superfluous. And we are an unnecessary drain on the public purse.

Seeing Mr. Parnell Campbell, QC in the room, that deficit is one that the defeated constitutional amendment tried to address, with what I believe was called the Council of Elders. But the failure of that Constitutional Amendment creates greater pressures on us, within our existing system, to live up to the original meaning and intent of the word “senator.”

Now we cant pretend that we are in a separate deliberative body. We can’t pretend that we are aloof. We have to be sensitive to our own Caribbean context, the smallness of our Parliament, and the rest of it. But we cannot also view the Senatorship as simply a political graveyard or a political launching pad; where hasbeens or wannnabees go after this or that electoral event. It has to have value in and of itself, and we as Senators have to give it that value, to add to the deliberations of this Parliament.

Since then, I’ve consistently held the view that, in our system, Senators are entirely parliamentary creatures, unless they also hold ministerial portfolios (under our Constitution, only two of the six senators in parliament can be named as ministers). My longstanding view on the special nature and special responsibilities of Senators as mature contributors to parliamentary debate led me to question Eustace’s decision to nominate senators to a House that he then instructed them to boycott. I also called out Senators Barnwell and Ferdinand for accepting taxpayers money for performing zero work – not because I have any animosity towards them (I’m quite fond of them both) but because I believe that, as Senators, they are being paid solely for their parliamentary contributions. Like I said back in 2013, if Senators aren’t contributing in parliament, they are a “superfluous. . . [and] unnecessary drain on the public purse.” Obviously, if I were setting fines, it would reflect my view on this matter. I would have no qualms about returning a senator’s entire salary to the consolidated fund each month they refuse to show up to Parliament.

A word on arrests

The Leader of the Opposition and St. Clair Leacock seem to have gotten their knickers in a twist because I mentioned incidents when the “call of the house” was enforced by the sergeant-at-arms or arrest warrants. If you can remember all the way back to the start of this blog, you’ll see that I mentioned a couple US examples of that practice here. Historically, these actions have also occurred in other commonwealth parliaments.

Anyway, my mention of these incidents has spurred Eustace to encourage me to take it to the Lord in prayer; and prompted Leacock to again burnish his imaginary bad man credentials, which are only slightly more fanciful than his self-proclaimed military rank.

There has also been a suggestion that I was calling for the arrest of the boycotting parliamentarians. I was not. Arresting Eustace et al would only add fuel to the dying embers of their ill-fated protest action. My mention of the powers of arrest and the call of the house was simply to highlight the seriousness with which some parliaments treat absences and boycotts.

In any event, the power of arrest is linked to the “Call of the House” and the call of the House only occurs when the Parliament doesn’t have a quorum. Under our current parliamentary configuration, a boycotting opposition does not deprive the House of quorum, so the “call of the House” could not be invoked. Further, under our Standing Orders (Rule 10), the Vincy version of the call of the House is pretty tame. Essentially, the Speaker can “direct Members to be summoned” to the House. But if they don’t show up within two minutes, all he can do is adjourn/suspend Parliament ’til some other time.

Even if I did advocate a law allowing the Speaker to arrest truant MPs, how could it practically work in a Vincy context? Would we all sit in Parliament for 10 hours while an officer took the ferry down to Union Island to grab Terrance Olliviere and then bring him back the next day? Or would we deploy a dragnet across Central Kingstown, only to be thwarted by the Major’s superior tactical training and guerrilla warfare experience?

C’mon.

So calm down, Messrs. Eustace and Leacock. That straw man won’t even stand up long enough for you to knock it down.

A word on institutions

“The things you do a beat we bad/but still you manage to keep you job.” – Kabaka Pyramid

The root of people’s mistrust/dislike for politicians lies in the chasm between expectation and reality. People expect us to work on their behalf because we promise that that’s what we’ll do. Politicians often overpromise and underdeliver, and the greater the distance between promise and delivery, the greater the mistrust of the political class.

But, over the years, disillusionment with individual politicians morphs into disillusionment with the entire “Babylon System.” The frustration with politician after politician leads people to get “fed up” that “the system sheg up” and believe that “the system set” against them. And, to a greater or lesser extent, the people are correct.

But when disillusionment with individuals becomes disillusionment with the system, frustration with the very institutional underpinnings of our democracy soon follow. Politicians have a special responsibility, as the partial architects of some of this disillusionment, to try to build trust and confidence in governance and institutions. By all means advocate change – even radical change – to existing institutions. But don’t just undermine institutions in the pursuit of power, or without offering alternative institutions. That’s dangerous.

We are in a political era where the Opposition is actively attempting to undermine the very institution that it seeks to control. By its absences and its utterances, it is saying that Parliament is unimportant and insignificant. Yet if they were ever to be elected, it is that same unimportant, insignificant parliament that they will occupy and try to utilize in national governance.

If you attack the legitimacy of a body for 15 years, do you think it suddenly becomes legitimate if you win an election? No. It doesn’t work that way.

But don’t undermine the institution that is the Parliament of SVG, unless you have an alternative mechanism of governance to suggest.

Institutions in young democracies are important. Trust in the legitimacy and importance of those institutions is even more important. So, if rules have to be devised to protect the legitimacy of those institutions against unfounded and self-serving attacks, then I’m all for ‘em.

It’s interesting that the Standing Orders of the SVG House of Assembly have a bunch of penalties that involve forcing people out of Parliament for a host of infractions. But the Standing Orders have no rules for forcing people in. That’s because the founding fathers assumed that people who offer themselves to serve the people would be honoured by an opportunity to serve them. They assumed that people would be competing to come into parliament, not devising schemes to stay out.

Under our existing rules, the ultimate sanction is to kick someone out of Parliament and not let them back in. But under our current reality, that’s exactly what opposition lawmakers are trying to do – stay out of parliament for as long as possible.

It shouldn’t have to come to this. SVG has managed 36 years of independent parliamentary practice without having to fine MPs for truancy. Service in Parliament should be an honour for which we clamour, not something to be quickly sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. But when the world is topsy turvy, and the thirst for power creates short term goals that are incompatible with long term development, sometimes you need a few simple truths to put things back in perspective.

Disclaimer: I’m about to accuse Arnhim Eustace and his closest followers of not having a single shred of evidence of election fraud or election error sufficient to call into question the results of the 2015 elections in SVG. It’s worth repeating that I am one of the individual candidates declared victorious in the elections, and that my party has been officially announced as the winner of the elections. So feel free to consider the source and accuse me of bias. But the same is true for Eustace. He was an active participant with a huge stake in the outcome. Feel free to accuse him too, as I am about to do.

Another General Elections in SVG, another Eustace claim of massive fraud. Another vote tallied in SVG, another declaration of victory by the defeated party. Another poll concluded in SVG, another demonization of the sitting Supervisor of Elections.

Back in 2010, the post-election headlines were eerily similar to this year’s:

And, ‘lest we forget, Eustace also refused to concede the 2005General Elections as well. It’s true. So while some people are claiming Eustace has led his party to four consecutive defeats at the polls, he may have a different view of things. Based on his refusal to concede the 2005, 2010 and 2015 general elections, maybe he thinks that he only lost one contest (2001), but was cheated out of the next three. Why did he accept the 2001 results, you ask? Well, because he was Prime Minister at the time, obviously! It’s hard to accuse the ULP of stealing the elections when NDP the government running the elections. But, to hear Eustace tell it, every single election that has occurred under the ULP has been a theft.

Now don’t get me wrong: Elections are useless if they are not free and fair, or if they do not reflect the will of the people. If Eustace and the NDP could produce any serious evidence of fraud, cheating, conspiracy, skullduggery or usurping the will of the electorate, I will join them on the picket line. Seriously. We are participating in a democratic contest, and that contest has rules, and everyone must abide by them. The fundamental rule is that the people get to choose their representatives and their government, that every eligible voter gets one vote, and that the candidate with the most votes wins. I believe deeply in those principles. Any mature democracy must follow its election rules.

But, the flip side is that democratic elections produce winners and losers, and that any mature democracy must have losing parties and candidates that accept the results of the elections and the will of the people. Accepting the results of elections is widely regarded as a key principle of democracy, because:

Given Eustace’s history of crying wolf every election but failing to substantiate his claims, you’ll forgive me for being more than a little skeptical of his allegations this time around. In 2010, after famously promising to being election petitions, criminal charges and civil claims, the NDP never bothered the Court’s Registrar. This time around, Eustace still hasn’t said he’s filed an election petition or any challenge to the legitimacy of the contest. He still has time, but we’re already two weeks past Election Day. The clock is ticking.

[Note: As I write this posting, the Midweek Searchlight is reporting on a court filing by the NDP. I’ll comment more on that filing later. It’s enough to say now that it is NOT an election petition, and that it does NOT seek to invalidate the poll results. As I understand it from the newspaper, the NDP has asked the Court to (1) take the ballot boxes away from the Supervisor of Elections, and (2) grant permission for the NDP to examine all of the individual counterfoils and ballots from Central Leeward. This is what lawyers call a “fishing expedition.” It is an admission by the NDP that they do not have enough evidence to bring a case, so they’re asking the Court for permission to root around in the ballot boxes in search of evidence that will match their theory of election fraud. Additionally, they are asking the Court to take the unprecedented step of allowing a political party to destroy the secrecy of the ballot to identify each individual voter and the vote cast by that voter. Imagine! A party telling the Court: “we don’t have a firm case at the moment, but if you let us check the names of every voter and who they voted for, I’m sure we can come up with something.” More on this in a later post.]

The big problem facing any NDP challenge to the election results is the sheer margin of the ULP’s victory. Although the ULP only managed to win the same 8 of 15 seats it won last time, it clinched those eight seats by much larger margins. The ULP won two seats by over 300 votes, two by over 550 votes, one by over 600 votes, two by over 750 votes, and one (the Prime Minister’s) by over 2,200 votes.

The ULP’s average margin of victory in the seats it won was over 770 votes. Even if you throw out the PM’s bastion as an outlier, it still clinched the other seven seats by an average of over 550 votes apiece. On mainland St. Vincent, the ULP defeated the NDP by 4,954 votes and a commanding 54% to 46% margin, with the vote and seat count only made closer by the Grenadines – which the James Mitchell administration unconstitutionally (imho) split from one seat to two. Nationally, the ULP defeated the NDP by 5% and doubled its margin of victory from the 2010 election.

A lot can be written about the 8-7 divide in SVG. But for the purpose of this post, we can agree that the numbers say that this election wasn’t nearly as close as the 2010 contest. Even if you accept the NDP’s best case allegation of 320 illegal votes in Central Leeward (more on that later), the NDP still loses the popular vote by almost 3,000 votes. In their best-case, the NDP would form an 8-7 government with a minority of the national votes; one seat won by 6 votes; and another by 12 votes. Hardly a mandate to govern.

The heart of the matter…

But let’s get to the meat of the NDP’s allegations of fraud, as I understand them. The allegations focus on the Central Leeward constituency, which the Supervisor of Elections says that the ULP won by 6.7% [53.2% vs 46.5%] or 313 votes. The NDP is claiming a six-vote victory in that constituency (now seven votes, based on the final count), based on a whopping 320 illegal votes cast in the town of Barrouallie alone.

I have listened closely to all of the allegations that have been made by the NDP and Arnhim Eustace. And they’re all laughable. I am also aware that Eustace has said he would like to fully detail his allegations, but that “it is not wise from a legal perspective.” In other words, he is accusing the Government of fraud, calling his supporters onto the streets, and giving Vincentian democracy a black eye based on evidence that only he knows.

OK.

But let’s address some of what has come out to date. One question at a time.

QUESTION #1. Why does the NDP think that they won Central Leeward by six votes?

Ah, the election-night rumour that the NDP had won Central Leeward by six votes. A rumour accepted as fact by the NDP, and a rumour that forms the basis of all of their fraud allegations. How did that come about?

The answer is almost comically bad. It takes us back to Barrouallie, more specifically, Polling Station B, which is at the Barrouallie Police Station.

On election night, there were at least three people in each Central Leeward polling station whose job was to monitor the vote count to report back to their respective bosses. One was the Electoral official, one was a ULP agent, and one was an NDP agent. All three of them (and a couple police officers, and maybe a few international observers) watched as the votes were counted. As soon as the preliminary count was finished they grabbed their mobile phones and called in their results to the Supervisor of Elections, the media, the ULP HQ and the NDP HQ, so that everyone could update their running totals.

On election night, the results from Polling Station B were ULP: 116 votes. NDP 122 votes. The NDP agent – let’s call her Jane Doe – called into the NDP HQ to report the results of that Polling Station. The conversation probably went something like this:

“Hi, this is Jane Doe, calling in from Central Leeward. Is this NDP HQ?”
“Yes, this is NDP HQ. EVERYONE BE QUIET! I HAVE CENTRAL LEEWARD ON THE PHONE!. . . Do you have a result to report?”
“Yes, I do. We won by six votes.”
“Excuse me? Can you repeat that?”
“Yes. We won by six votes.”
“Are you sure?”
“Yes. I am right here at the polling station. Six vote margin.”
“OH PRAISE THE LORD! WE WON CENTRAL LEEWARD BY SIX VOTES!! WE DID IT!!” [Pandemonium ensues. Champagne bottles pop. Back slapping begins. Ben Exeter does one of his groovy dances.]

That’s what happened, more or less. An agent called in to report a six-vote NDP victory at one polling station, and it was misinterpreted as a six-vote victory constituency-wide. Since I was on the inside of the ULP HQ, I immediately dismissed the NDP declarations of a six-vote victory because it was made when votes were still being counted in other polling stations. You can declare victory with boxes still uncounted if you’re winning by a mile. You can’t do it if you have a six-vote lead.

This is the sort of thing that happens on election night. In my own constituency, the person manning the phone at ULP HQ told me that I won Polling Station A1 in Enhams by a score of 226 to 66. The office was ecstatic. I immediately told them that that info had to be wrong. Last election, we’d won the box by 51 votes. What could explain a 160 vote victory this time? My team called me unduly pessimistic. They said it was a reflection of a massive ULP victory, of my own popularity, etc. They kept that 160-vote tally on the board until the bitter end, when the Supervisor of Election’s numbers said that ULP won the box by 60 votes, not 160. Maybe if I’d lost the seat I’d be viewing that 100-vote reduction with suspicion. But I doubt it.

The day after the elections, ULP supporters, almost to a man, thought that Luke Browne lost to Eustace by 24 votes and the Jomo Thomas lost to Nature by 18 votes. Up to today, I have been correcting people on these points. The truth is that Luke lost by 149 votes and Jomo by 118. Are these 100+ vote ‘changes’ a reflection of incompetence or fraud by the Supervisor of Elections? Of course not. Just proof of how inaccurate rumours can spread on election night.

Anyway, the myth of the NDP’s six-vote victory in Central Leeward has permeated all of the other claims of fraud. Since they thought they won by six votes, but the preliminary results said that they lost by 314 votes, they assumed that 320 votes were fraudulent. That 320 votes is now the Holy Grail that the NDP seeks to overturn the Central Leeward result. [Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the NDP’s Court filing can’t pinpoint specific evidence of fraud, but they’ve already decided conclusively that 320 votes were illegally cast?]

All because of a misunderstood election night phone call. I kid you not.

QUESTION #2. Could the ULP have stolen (or stuffed) a ballot box to give them victory in Central Leeward?

In a word: No.

Let’s think this one through: According to the ballot box conspiracy theorists, the NDP won Central Leeward by 6 votes, and then the ULP either snatched a ballot box or stuffed one to steal the victory.

The first huge problem with that argument is that all ballot boxes are present and accounted for.

The second problem with that argument is that some NDP agent somewhere (plus some police and electoral officials) would have mentioned a missing box.

The third, and most significant problem is that no one box – stuffed or stolen – could produce a 320 vote swing.

Check this out: The three biggest margins of victory in any individual Polling Stations in Central Leeward are 81 votes (E1, Layou), then 75 votes (D, Barrouallie), then 57 votes (H, Buccament Bay). In the last elections, those margins were 62, 45 and 104, respectively.

So, across the three biggest boxes in 2010, the ULP margin was 211 votes. Across the same boxes this year it was 213 votes. Stop me when you see signs of massive fraud.

There is not, and has never been, a single box that could produce a 320 vote swing in Central Leeward. Most of the Polling Stations didn’t even have a total of 320 voters, much less a margin of 320. The most voters in any Central Leeward polling station this election was the 385 voters in Polling Station A. Unless Exeter actually won that station by a margin of 353 to 32, there can be no stuffed/stolen box conspiracy that will stick.

QUESTION #3. What about the theory that there are 320 illegal votes across not one, but TWO polling stations?

One of the polling stations where Eustace alleges fraud is polling station A1, where he falsely claims 100% of the registered voters turned up (more on that later). The other is also in Barrouallie, but I’m not sure which one. There are a total of seven polling stations in Barrouallie.

So if we are to believe Eustace, there are 320 illegal votes cast between Polling Station A1 and some other Barrouallie polling station.

It is laughably implausible. And I’ll show you why.

First, there were 2,119 votes cast in Barrouallie. 320 illegal votes in Barrouallie would be 15% of all votes cast. That’s tough to swallow. But Eustace says that the the 320 votes were cast in “only two polling stations”!!!

So let’s do the math:

The two biggest polling stations in Barrouallie are A and A1. In 2015, 728 people voted at those two stations. If you believe Eustace, 320 of those 728 votes were illegal. That would be 44% of all votes cast!! If you use any other two boxes in Central Leeward, the percentage is even higher.

How on God’s green earth could anyone in our electoral system manage to pull off a scam where almost half of the total votes cast were illegal?

But wait, there’s more.

If there were 320 illegal votes cast in two boxes in Central Leeward, you would expect to see an overall spike in the number of voters, right? Meaning that the legitimate voters would continue to vote, PLUS the additional 320 illegal votes, right?

So let’s look:

See that? There are no two polling stations in Barrouallie (or anywhere else in Central Leeward for that matter) where the number of votes cast has increased by 320 votes over 2010.

In 2010, 117 more people voted in all of Barrouallie than in 2005.

In 2015, 82 more people voted in all of Barrouallie than in 2010.

Natural constituency growth. But let’s be generous. Let’s say that every single new Barrouallie voter in 2015 was an illegal ULP voter. No new voters, no transfers, nobody turning 18 over the last five years. Let’s strike out all of those 82 new Barrouallie voters as illegal.

The NDP still loses by 231 votes.

Let’s go even further:

In 2010, a total of 4,430 people voted in Central Leeward. In 2015, that number grew to 4,697. That’s a total difference of 267 voters, constituency-wide, over five years.

Where are the additional 320 illegal voters in Central Leeward?

Let’s assume again, that every single one of the 267 of the new voters since the last election is illegal. Those 267 votes would be deleted from the count.

The ULP would still win the seat by 46 votes.

[LATE EDITOR’S XMAS-EVE NOTE: One more piece of statistical ridiculousness to refute Eustace’s claim of 320 illegal votes in two Central Leeward ballot boxes. Take a look at the final results from Central Leeward in the 2015 Elections, Polling Station by Polling Station:

Now look specifically at the Barrouallie polling stations — A thru D1. You’ll notice that the most votes that the ULP got in any two Polling Stations is the vote total from Stations “A” (198 votes) and “D” (192 votes). That’s a total of 390 votes. If you believe Eustace’s claim that there are 320 illegal ULP votes in two Barrouallie polling stations, that means that A MINIMUM of 82% of the votes cast for the ULP in those two stations were illegal. If means that no more than 70 votes were legitimately cast for the ULP in those two boxes. If you look at the historical trends in Barrouallie, you know this isn’t just improbable. It’s comically false.]

Eustace’s allegation of 320 illegal votes in two Central Leeward polling stations is a mathematical impossibility, unless the ULP was simultaneously intimidating, kidnapping or assassinating legitimate voters from previous elections.

QUESTION #4. What about the allegation that 100% of registered voters at a polling station turned up to vote? That would be suspicious, right?”

It would be suspicious if it were true. Very suspicious. But it’s simply false.

The list of registered voters in Central Leeward – issued before the elections – shows a total of 443 voters listed at Polling Station A1. You can check it yourself. Then, the preliminary count shows that 343 of those 443 people voted.

Then, at the final count – at which all of the NDP lawyers and Eustace and Exeter were present – reconfirmed that 343 people voted at Polling Station A1.

343 out of 443 is not 100%. It’s 77%. That 77% is only slightly higher than the national average of 73% voter turnout for the 2015 elections. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about the turnout at Polling Station A1.

Why won’t someone ask Eustace if he and his team were present at the recount? And then ask them how many ballots were counted at polling station A1? Are the preliminary and final counts a lie? Is someone hiding an extra hundred votes?

I don’t believe that Eustace is a naked, boldfaced liar. I believe that, at some point, he really thought that there were 100% votes cast at that polling station. But it’s not true. What I believe is that somewhere, someone has some piece of paper where someone inadvertently wrote in “443” in the “votes cast” column instead of the “registered voters” column. And I believe that Eustace saw that piece of paper and came to his false conclusion.

But this is simple to solve. Look at the final pre-election voter’s list. See how many people were registered to vote at Polling Station A1 (443). Look at the final count. See how many actually voted (343). Is it 100%? (No.) Good. Let’s move on.

QUESTION #5. There is a photo online of an unsealed ballot box. Unsealed ballot boxes are bad, right?

Let’s go back to Eustace’s own words, as reported by I-Witness News: “I can also say that none. . . of those [ballot] boxes were sealed.”

“It is worth pointing that contrary to information that has been circulated on social media- all fifteen ballot boxes were stored at the Layou Police Station on the night of December 9th and were all opened and used in the Final Count on December 10th. All boxes were properly sealed with both the plastic and paper seals in place.”

I’m not sure what I can add to this.

The Supervisor of Elections says the boxes were sealed. I believe her. There is no evidence to the contrary. To unseal the boxes would involve a massive conspiracy involving Electoral Office staff, the police, the ULP observer AND the NDP observer, not to mention (possibly) the international observers who would have noticed that at least some of the boxes were unsealed. In any event, the math says that there was no ballot box stuffing (see above).

This one is just not true.

QUESTION 6. But on the Sunday after the election, the Supervisor of Elections was seen in her office!! With the Returning Officer from Central Leeward!! THAT’s a smoking gun, isn’t it?

This has got the be the silliest of the silly fraud allegations. I’ll let the Supervisor of Elections handle this one herself:

“On Saturday, 12th December, I returned to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. to complete outstanding administrative work; specifically certifying outstanding payments, responding to correspondence and tidying my office space. While at the office, I listened to the Press Conference hosted by the NDP in which alleged voting irregularities in the Central Leeward constituency were highlighted. I therefore contacted the Returning Officer and the Election Clerk and requested an urgent meeting to review the issues raised at the NDP Press Conference. I felt that Sunday afternoon seemed like a convenient time to meet since the meeting could be held in a quiet, uninterrupted setting. Additionally, I needed to be clear on the way forward as the office continued its post-election duties.

The meeting convened just after 1:30 p.m. Almost immediately a crowd gathered. . . I was again subjected to more verbal attacks by the protesters who among other things demanded to know why I was at the Electoral Office on a Sunday.

The records will show that since the 7th November, 2015 (the date on which the election date was announced) I have been at the Electoral Office every day until Sunday 13th December- Saturdays and Sundays included. My work day, even on weekends, ran from approximately 8:30 a.m. to as late as 12 midnight on Sunday, 6th December. The full-time staff of the Electoral Office has also worked every day of the week from Monday 9th November to Tuesday 8th December from as early as 7 a.m. to as late as 12 midnight. I hasten to add this also obtained in 2009 for the Referendum as well as for the 2010 General Election.

Also at the office on Sunday 13th December was a young lady hired to clean the Customer Service area and other spaces in the Electoral Office that could not be cleaned on Friday afternoon because of the collection of ballot boxes and election material.

Any questions?

Good.

Now I have a couple questions:

QUESTION #7. If the ULP is so cunning as to quickly take a six vote loss to a 313 vote victory, why didn’t they just go ahead and swing the North Leeward, South Leeward and/or East Kingstown seats?

The ULP lost three seats — North Leeward, South Leeward and East Kingstown — by a grand total of just 279 votes.

Think about that.

The NDP is asking me to accept a reality where the ULP fraud machine can manufacture 320 illegal votes in two polling stations, but can’t produce 280-odd votes across three whole constituencies?

C’mon.

It would have been better, and easier, for the ULP to give Central Leeward to the NDP and focus their alleged ballot box stuffing on East Kingstown, North and South Leeward. It would have required fewer illegal votes, raised less suspicion, and it would have produced a 10-5 election result instead of an 8-7 outcome.

Can the ULP be at once so clever to circumvent all of the safeguards in Central Leeward but so stupid as to not focus their energies on the NDP’s marginal wins?

C’mon.

The ULP lost North Leeward by a scant 12 votes. In that seat, neither candidate got 50% of the vote [49.97% vs 49.70%]. In some countries’ voting systems, the mere failure of anyone to reach the 50% mark would trigger a second round of voting.

But I digress. If the ULP can conjure up 300+ illegal votes through their well-oiled fraud machinery, how hard would it be to stuff an additional 15 or so illegal ballots into the North Leeward boxes? Or simply remove that many NDP votes from the ballot boxes?

It’s important to remember that the preliminary vote count had the ULP candidate in North Leeward losing by six votes. The ballot boxes were then stored overnight and recounted the next day. At the next day’s recount, after having a whole night to commit election fraud, the ULP loss actually widened, from 6 votes to 12.

What am I supposed to take from that? That the ULP had fraudsters in place in Central Leeward but not the neighboring constituency of North Leeward? That the fraud team was so busy stuffing ballot boxes in Barrouallie that they couldn’t make it over to Fitzhughes? That the North Leeward boxes were actually stuffed by NDP operatives, hence the overnight change in favour of Patel Matthews?

C’mon.

QUESTION #8. Where were the NDP agents when all this Central Leeward fraud was taking place?

The preliminary vote count on the night of the Central Leeward election said that the ULP won the seat by 314 votes. For the entire Election Day — from the time the polls opened to the time the first vote was cast to the time that the last vote was counted — there was a trained NDP agent in each polling station observing the proceedings. There were also police officers, electoral officials, and ULP observers. Independent international observers, from CARICOM, the OAS and The Commonwealth were also stopping by regularly. Both candidates, Straker and Exeter, no doubt also dropped in many times during the day.

But let’s focus on the NDP observers, and the timeline of the alleged fraud.

The most important fact that we have to keep in mind is that the preliminary count on election night said that ULP won Central Leeward by 314 votes. That means that a process of voting and counting that took place in full view of the NDP agents, produced a preliminary result of a 314 vote ULP victory.

It’s not like the preliminary count declared an NDP victory, and then the following day a different result was reached. If that had happened, the NDP could claim that something fishy happened overnight when no one was looking. But no. The vote that was conducted and counted in full view of NDP agents produced this result.

So any fraud — ballot box stuffing or stealing, ballot mutilation, forgery, etc. — would have to take place in front of NDP agents.

Were they sleeping? Was the ballot stuffing so skillfully done that they didn’t notice?

And at what point, precisely, did this fraud take place? According to the Midweek Searchlight, Ben Exeter may be suggesting that the fraud happened during a 45-minute period after the polls closed when he stopped receiving updates on the vote count from various polling stations. According to Exeter, he was receiving regular updates from polling stations that had him ahead in the count, then people stopped calling for 45 minutes, and next thing he knew, he was down 314 votes.

Help me to work this through:

Is Exeter suggesting that the ULP saw they were losing, and thus mobilized their fraud machine, which managed to produce 320 illegal votes, in the space of 45 minutes, and in full view of paid NDP and international observers?

Really? Is that even possible?

The conspiracy involved would be massive. Even if it was just two polling stations, you’re talking about four or five police officers, about 10 electoral officials, a couple ULP observers (just ‘cuz they support the ULP doesn’t mean they’d participate in a criminal conspiracy) and, of course the NDP observers. And they’d all have to keep their mouth shut forever.

I caught the SVG TV news a couple nights ago, and watched Eustace suggesting darkly that NDP agents may have been “compromised.” Is that how far he is willing to go to create a scenario that excludes himself from blame?

A scenario where, in a 45-minute window, secret ULP operatives swoop in, bribe the police, the electoral officials, the ULP observers and even NDP observers; then introduce 320 pro-ULP illegal ballots in two polling stations; count those illegal ballots in full view of international observers; then recount them the next day in front of NDP lawyers, the NDP candidate, and a different set of police officers? A scenario where this 45-minute electoral heist is done with such precision and forethought that those 320 illegal votes blend in seamlessly with legally-cast votes? A scenario where the deceitful ULP accidentally stuffs one ballot box past 100% capacity, but then miraculously corrects the problem by removing 100 ballots, and still manages to inexplicably make the final numbers add up to the same preliminary numbers?

OK.

Or…

Possibly… Call me crazy… But maybe… Just maybe… The NDP lost the election.

]]>https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/arnhim-eustace-crying-wolf-again/feed/8imagecamillog2014imageimageimageimageimageimageTen Months to Save the Worldhttps://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/ten-months-to-save-the-world/
https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/ten-months-to-save-the-world/#commentsMon, 19 Jan 2015 10:54:52 +0000http://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/?p=166Continue reading →]]> Not to put too fine a point on it, but by the end of this year you will know whether humanity managed to save or destroy planet earth.

I’m not joking.

You see, from 30 November to 11 December 2015, the world’s leaders will converge on a suburb of Paris, France to craft a “universal, legally binding” agreement to limit climate change and help vulnerable countries adapt to the impacts of global temperature and sea level rise. If the Paris summit fails to craft that agreement, then, to quote Bob Marley out of context: “many more will have to suffer/many more will have to die/don’t ask me why.” If the summit half-succeeds by arriving at some watered-down, unambitious, middle-of-the-road accord, the results for islands, coastal and low-lying areas will be cataclysmic. Some islands could disappear altogether. Some will lose their coastlines, beaches, coastal towns and infrastructure. Others islands will survive, but be almost uninhabitable due to the unpredictability of the weather, the devastation of fisheries and agriculture, and the costs involved in building, re-building and retrofitting infrastructure to survive increasingly intense climate onslaughts.

1.5 to Stay Alive. . . Over Three, You Cease to Be

Five years ago, at a Climate Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, that was advertised as the world’s best opportunity to “Seal the Deal” on climate change, a slogan was born:

That slogan was coined by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and adopted by CARICOM to highlight the fact that some small islands will disappear if the average global temperature rises more than 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. They will simply be swallowed up by the rising seas. Entire populations will have to be re-settled elsewhere. Entire nations and civilisations will simply cease to exist. The “1.5 to Stay Alive” slogan was meant to highlight the plight of island states, which are more vulnerable to climate change than many larger countries. The scientists who study climate change basically say that the planet earth is screwed if global temperatures rise over 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. But the short distance between 1.5 and 2°C is the difference between life and death for many island states.

In December 2014, Peru hosted the penultimate climate conference before the 2015 Paris finale, those hoping to keep temperature rise below 1.5 °C received a shocking wake-up call. The final declaration for the Peru Conference said:

“Noting with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels,”

Reading between the diplomatic lines, that paragraph contains one of the most damning condemnations of the process to date. What it basically says is that we’re nowhere close to keeping the temperature rise under 1.5°C. All these headline-grabbing pledges you see from China, India, the USA and the EU sound great individually, but add them up, and the current picture is a troubling 4 °C rise over pre-industrial levels. A 4° rise makes the Caribbean close to unlivable, and guarantees that pacific islands vanish from the face of the earth.

Current policy projections and emissions targets have global warming topping out at 4.2 degrees. If that becomes a reality, the Caribbean is doomed.

The End of the World As We Know It

The real bad news is not that Peru said we were still far away from the 1.5 °C target, it was that the negotiators tacitly conceded that we’re never going to get there. The Peru Conference marked the shift from “hard” emissions targets to “soft” ones. Before Peru, we’ve been looking at emissions mathematically: If we want to keep temperature rise under 2°C, then we need to limit global emissions to X-amount. Once we agree on that, you can prescribe a hard cap that each country has to meet, and make that cap legally binding. You can say the USA has to reduce by this much, India has to stay below that much, and Europe must switch this many coal plants to renewable energy plants. The Peru Conference gave up on that approach, saying instead:

9. Reiterates its invitation to each Party to communicate to the secretariat its intended nationally determined contribution towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2;

10. Agrees that each Party’s intended nationally determined contribution towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 will represent a progression beyond the current undertaking of that Party;

and

14. Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their intended nationally determined contributions, in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and, as appropriate, removals, and how the Party considers that its intended nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2;

What does that mean? Basically, that the world isn’t going to tell you how much to cut. Instead, you tell the world what you feel comfortable cutting – or what you can get past your parliaments and business interests – but, please, make it something more than you’ve already announced you’ll cut, and try to make it “fair and ambitious.”

Worse than that is the fact that the Peru document does not include a single mechanism to actually monitor whether these self-imposed targets are being met. It’s an honour system for a group of emitters that have acted in a less than honourable manner for the last two decades. If this is the system that is enshrined into treaty later this year in Paris, it’s the end of the world as we know it.

A helpful graphic. Islands’ future in a climate-changed world

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Let us be clear: If the upcoming Paris Conference fails to reach a satisfactory agreement on 11th December, climate Armageddon doesn’t begin on the 12th. The Conference may end up doing what each successive conference has done – posture for first week, get serious in the final days, and, after 72 hours of sleepless negotiation, kick the can down the road and defer any serious decisions until some date in the future.

But failure or business as usual in Paris will set in train an almost irrevocable series of events that will fundamentally alter life in the Caribbean to our detriment. Islands will feel the pain first and worst, as we are already beginning to experience.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a global scientific body that analyses “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” Their 5thAssessment Report on Climate Change was published last year. If you have time, read the chapters on Small Islands, Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas, and Food Security and Food Production Systems. In summary, here’s what the IPCC scientists say is in store for small islands:

More Sea Level Rise

More hurricanes

Changing rainfall patterns – more floods and droughts

Increases in submergence, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion

Increases in the erosion of beaches, sand dunes, and cliffs

Degrading of fresh groundwater

Coral bleaching, reef degradation

Negative impact on fisheries due to destruction of reef ecosystems and migration of fish stocks

Some islands rendered uninhabitable by Sea Level Rise

Hundreds of millions of people will be affected by coastal flooding and will be displaced due to land loss by year 2100

This year, and Paris, represents a stand up and fight moment for the Caribbean. The public diplomacy and advocacy of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Caribbean has been focused on explaining what will happen to us if the climate change is not controlled, and hoping that gentle moral suasion would guilt major emitters into action. AOSIS has resisted strong calls from within the group to be a radical – even disruptive – force in climate change negotiations out of fear that such action would marginalize us or be counterproductive. But we cannot be complicit handmaidens to our own destruction. We must demand that those with the responsibility and the means step up and solve this problem.

The USA and the EU are responsible for more than half of the world’s emissions between 1850 and today

Let’s look at the facts: Since 1850, more than half of carbon that’s ended up in the atmosphere has come from the United States and the EU, and only 11 percent is from China. Among the world’s top-10 emitters, Canada and the United States are far and away the biggest per-capita polluters, while India is well below the world average.

The World’s Top-10 polluters, by average per-capita pollution

How about electricity consumption? The average Cambodian uses 164 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. The average Angolan 248. The average Indian, 684 and the average Chinese 3,298. Meanwhile, the average American is consuming 13,246kWh while Canadians burn 16,473kWh – 24 times what an Indian consumes.

You tell me who bears the greatest global responsibility to reduce their emissions and limit global warming. AOSIS can’t be reticent in calling a spade a spade.

At the same time, we cannot be so slavishly devoted to traditional negotiating blocs that we act against our own self-interest. While the mathematical and historical facts are clear on who bears the responsibility for our current predicament, it is also true that many of our brothers in the developing world have been less than helpful negotiators in recent Climate Conferences. Some of our friends have been short sighted and self-interested to the point of hostility to our survival. Europe, on the other hand, has shown good faith and at least some willingness to engage constructively on the issue. Solidarity cuts both ways. I can’t be expected to show solidarity with you if you refuse to show solidarity with me against existential threats. Last month, the EU-LAC Foundation asked me my thoughts on new approaches in the year between Peru and Paris. I said then that:

Traditional North-South negotiating blocs have, to date, proven inadequate to tackle Climate Change. There is still limited time and opportunity to reach beyond the traditional comfort zones to achieve success in Paris. The EU and CELAC are now fortuitously thrust together in what could be the final opportunity to meet the defining existential challenge of our age. The EU and CELAC should consult with each other formally on this matter in the months leading to Paris. We should harmonise ambitious positions and coalesce into a new, decisive negotiating bloc. The EU should target its expertise, technology and financing assistance on the island and coastal states of CELAC, as a tangible and compelling example of what is possible in North-South climate cooperation.

What this all means is that the playbook for the next 10 months must be re-written. New alliances; new tactics; new arguments. 1.5 °C is still our target, but it is becoming less and less of a realistic goal with each passing day. We must fight in every venue and at every opportunity for that target, but we must also prepare for the possibility of a world with a temperature increase of two or more degrees. That means more money – much more money – to fund adaptation from those major emitters responsible for climate change. They must realise that either they pay to change their internal modes of production and consumption, or they pay more for the external damage that they cause.

Lots of adaption to do; no money to do it

We must consider legal challenges. In the absence of enforcement mechanisms in the Peru document, we must fashion our own, and make climate compliance the litmus test that guides our diplomatic engagement and alliances. We must weigh the cost of derailing the process against the cost of acquiescing to a process that ensures our destruction. If this year is business as usual on the climate front, we’re all dead.

It’s that simple.

]]>https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/ten-months-to-save-the-world/feed/5manandwomancamillog2014manandwomanCurrent policy projections and emissions targets have global warming topping out at 4.2 degrees. If that becomes a reality, the Caribbean is doomed.A helpful graphic. Islands' future in a climate-changed worldwe-are-not-drowningThe USA and the EU are responsible for more than half of the world's emissions between 1850 and todayThe World's Top-10 polluters, by average per-capita pollutionLots of adaption to do; no money to do ittheendTHE WHITE FLAG OF NON-COOPERATIONhttps://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/the-white-flag-of-non-cooperation/
https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/the-white-flag-of-non-cooperation/#commentsThu, 23 Oct 2014 09:44:26 +0000http://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/?p=156Continue reading →]]>

On 19th August, opposition senator Linton Lewis made an unremarkable statement in a remarkably incongruous context. One of the main roles of the parliamentary opposition, he said, was to seek clarification of governmental action and policy (or words to that effect). Senator Lewis’ offhand, innocuous assertion would not be out of place in any social studies, civics, or political science classroom.

What raised eyebrows was the place and time at which the truism was uttered. Senator Lewis chose to highlight the Opposition’s responsibility to clarify and scrutinize on the very day that they were explicitly eschewing such roles. Shortly before the debate on the Bill at issue, the Opposition scuttled the traditional parliamentary “Question Time” by refusing to pose a single query to Government ministers. To my memory, it is the first time that the Opposition attended parliament (i.e. did not boycott proceedings), yet failed to ask a single question of members of Cabinet.

In that same 19th August sitting of Parliament, Northern Grenadines MP Godwin Friday asserted that the place for him to bring the specific concerns of his constituents was the Hose of Assembly, presumably during Question Time. Yet, he asked no questions. Is the Government meeting the needs of the residents of the Northern Grenadines so comprehensively that there is no need for the representative to represent their concerns in Parliament?

Shortly after Senator Lewis spoke, two important bills enjoyed their first reading and were sent to Select Committee for further refinement. The bills dealt with terrorist financing and electronic funds transfers. The Leader of the Opposition, who is entitled – and may even be obligated – to name members of his choosing to Select Committees, flatly refused to nominate a single individual to scrutinize either piece of legislation.

The decisions to refrain from asking questions and refuse participation in Select Committees were apparently part of the Opposition’s new tactic of “non-cooperation” with the Government. Announced with great fanfare at their recent, ill-fated protest march, the opposition has promised to curtail any and all acts of cooperation with the government until Prime Minister Gonsalves “rings the bell” and calls new elections (Constitutionally due no later than March 2016). To quote Central Kingstown MP St. Clair Leacock, who announced the policy:

From here on, with a one-seat majority, Ralph, the New Democratic Party is not co-operating with you on anything, save and except for the next general elections. . . So if you want our support in any activity, in any action, and for any decision you make, ring the bell, call the election, relieve yourself from your misery, and bring back good governance to this country, and bring back the New Democratic party, bring back Eustace into prime ministership of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

The Prime Minister and his Press Secretary have already criticized the non-cooperation tactic as “foolish,” or evidence that the NDP is “not interested in good governance or the people’s welfare.” I don’t intend to pile on to those broad assessments, or to question the general non-cooperation tactic. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the NDP’s business. In any event, this blog isn’t set up to score narrow political points. I have other forums and opportunities to do that.

My issue, and my humble request, is strictly confined to parliamentary practice: I do not understand why performing your basic parliamentary responsibilities considered an act of “cooperation” with the government. Since I don’t understand how scrutinizing, questioning and challenging the government constitute “cooperation,” I would respectfully request that the Opposition reconsider this particular tactic. By all means, continue your broad non-cooperation as you see fit, but inside of the Parliament, please perform the roles and functions that Vincentian taxpayers pay you and expect you to do.

QUESTION TIME

Each sitting of Parliament allows every member of the Opposition (and government backbenchers) to ask relevant questions of any Government minister. According to the Standing Orders of the SVG House of Assembly, “Questions may be put to Ministers relating to the public affairs for which they are officially responsible.” Brining issues to light and putting Government ministers on the spot through questioning is universally considered to be a fundamental responsibility of opposition parliamentarians in our Westminster system.

Allow[ing] the opposition to ask executive government questions and to critically examine its work. Ministers are called upon to be accountable and explain their decisions and actions in their portfolios (areas of government responsibility).

So, in the view of the Australian Parliament, asking questions is not an act of cooperation with the Government, but instead, an opportunity for the opposition to scrutinize the government.

In a book called Parliament & Bureaucracy, one author said that question time provides “an effective — or at least potentially effective — opportunity for parliamentarians to hold ministers accountable for their administration in a highly exposed fashion.”

Is holding government ministers accountable – and potentially exposing them – an act of cooperation? Methinks not.

In the United States, a few election cycles ago, Presidential candidate John McCain suggested introducing the British Question Time concept in the US political system, thereby compelling the President to face questions from the US Congress. The New York Times suggested that such an innovation would be “a boon for democracy.” Somehow they didn’t see it as an act of cooperation between government and opposition.

A select committee is a cross-party group of MPs or Lords given a specific remit to investigate and report back to the House that set it up. Select committees gather evidence from ministers and officials, the public and organisations outside Parliament. Their reports are published and the Government must respond to their findings. Select committees are one of the key ways in which Parliament makes sure the Government has to explain or justify what it is doing or how it is spending taxpayers’ money

While there are some procedural differences between Vincentian Select Committees and their British counterparts, their role and function is the same. They are one of the “key ways” that the legislative, budgetary, or policy initiatives of the government can be scrutinized, refined and explained. Yet, on 19th August, the Leader of the Opposition refused to participate in two separate select committees. Why? Who is he hurting by this refusal – the ULP or SVG?

Section 68(1) of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly of SVG says that “Every Select Committee shall be so constituted as to ensure so far as is possible, that the balances of parties in the House is reflected in the Committee.” In light of that mandate, does the Leader of the Opposition really have the option to refuse nominating members to serve on Select Committees? And even if it is theoretically possible for him to opt out of ensuring that Select Committees reflect the composition of the House of Assembly, is it advisable for him to abdicate this responsibility?

THE NON-COOPERATION ABDICATION

In 1989, the New Democratic Party won every single constituency in SVG, an historic 15-0 whitewash of the opposition Labour Party and Movement for National Unity (MNU). The unprecedented electoral romp raised interesting Constitutional quirks and questions: if no opposition candidate wins a seat, are the thousands of people who voted against the winning party simply unrepresented in Parliament? And, if there is no leader of the opposition, who names the two opposition senators that §28 of the Constitution prescribes as part of the House of Assembly?

The victorious NDP maintained that there was to be no leader of the opposition and no opposition senators. The Governor General, who is constitutionally mandated to name the leader of the opposition and opposition senators, agreed with the position of the NDP.

Ralph Gonsalves, then leader of the MNU, brought a Constitutional challenge, essentially to have the courts force the Governor General to name two opposition senators. He argued that, in addition to debating bills, a fundamental role of Parliament was for the opposition to hold the government’s feet to the fire through the asking of pertinent questions, and to examine and amend legislation through Select Committees. He also stressed the importance of the Public Accounts Committee, which is to be headed by the leader of the opposition.

The court action was ultimately unsuccessful, and the 1989-1994 parliament featured no opposition members, no question time, one-sided select committees, and no Public Accounts Committee. Every opportunity to clarify and scrutinize the legislative action and cabinet performance of the NDP Government was lost. The government later collapsed under the weight of its own hubris, born, in part, from a five-year hiatus from oversight, analysis and debate.

All of this historical context begs the question: why would the current Opposition voluntarily surrender rights that past opposition candidates actually sued the government to enjoy? And why would the NDP, which narrowly lost the last general elections by a single seat, allow the government to act in Parliament as if it has a 15-seat majority?

THE DEATH OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE, THE RISE OF ECHO CHAMBER REAFFIRMATION

Our Westminster political system is not kind to opposition parties. “If you think governing is hard,” says PM Gonsalves often, “try opposition.” As a party in opposition, you don’t have many real powers. You are likely to be outvoted on everything that brings you into conflict with the government. You are unable to set the policy agenda or use parliamentary procedures to block legislation that you oppose. Thirteen years of such unbroken parliamentary impotence is enough to cause any opposition leader to throw up their hands in frustration.

The temptation to avoid the anguish of parliamentary defeat is even greater in modern times, when media – both traditional and social – offer myriad opportunities to spread your message in friendly, unchallenging echo chambers, free from contrary voices or the pesky reality that you are in opposition. The NDP has famously boycotted Parliament in favour of holding a mock parliament with supporters in their own party headquarters. Members of Parliament have occasionally walked out of the House of Assembly and headed directly to the friendly confines of party-sponsored radio programmes.

It is clear that the occasional parliamentary boycott has its place in the political bag of tricks that an opposition has at its disposal. There is nothing wrong with the selective use of boycotts to make a point, but an apparent abandonment of Parliamentary responsibilities for what could be another year-plus of sittings is unprecedented.

The Opposition seems to have decided that the House of Assembly is not the best forum for it to get its message across. They are probably correct in that assessment. The style and format of Parliamentary debate plays directly to the strengths of Prime Minister Gonsalves, yet makes many other parliamentarians with different skill sets seem out of their depth. Because of this, the opposition NICE Radio rarely broadcasts Parliamentary sittings, while state and government stations cover the sessions in mind-numbing detail.

Further, after a constant drumbeat of breathless, hyper-partisan and overheated apocalyptic pronouncements on new and traditional media, the constraints of decorous parliamentary debate can be somewhat anticlimactic. Witness the hype surrounding the allegedly evil and corrupt Passport Act; or the supposedly reckless plundering of the National Insurance Scheme – two media sensations that quickly fizzled when subjected to the logic of reasoned discourse.

Things never sound better than when they are ventilated in a closed echo chamber, where the only words you hear are your own, even if repeated by others. Less so when those pronouncements can be answered, deconstructed and contextualized by dissonant voices.

I’ve written in the past about the way echo chambers and hyper-partisan name calling affect civil discourse in our small country. No need to retread that topic here. And there is nothing wrong with the proliferation of new places and opportunities to get your political point across. The more the merrier. But the ease of operating in a radio or social media echo chamber cannot be an excuse for any serious political party to abandon the foundations of our Constitutional parliamentary democracy. Failing to do your job in parliament doesn’t discredit the governing party, it discredits Parliament itself. And if the Opposition ever hopes to actually govern in the future, it’s gonna need a legitimate and respected Parliament. Because you can oppose a government from a street corner, a rum shop, a radio station or a web site. But you can’t govern a country from any of those locales. You’ll need a functioning, respected and legitimate parliament. It is the responsibility of all parties and politicians to perform their assigned roles in that parliament, up until the time that the electorate changes those roles.

I am writing this blog posting on the eve of another sitting of Parliament. Once again, the Opposition has not given notice of a single question that they intend to ask. This means that, once again, no Opposition parliamentarian will ask a single question of any Government minister. But the radio programmes, the blogosphere, and social media are positively bristling with questions for the Government. There are, to name a few, questions worth asking on the Clare Valley Low Income Housing development; our Ebola preparedness; the latest Chikungunya statistics and vector control; the value and acceptance of associate degrees from the SVG Community College; Crime; the latest economic data; the conviction and sentencing of the former Registrar; Bigga Biggs; traffic and bypass options now that work has begun on the leeward highway; and a host of narrow constituent concerns relating to particular roads, playing fields, projects and the like.

Is it that parliament is no longer the venue to raise and answer these questions? Is the role of opposition parliamentarian now ceded to journalists and Internet trolls? Is it that the government’s well-publicised positions on these issues are so comprehensive that there is no need to question them?

Or is it that the Opposition’s responsibility to shine a light has been overtaken by their desire to generate political heat? Is it that the accusation is more important than the answer, or is it that the obligation to generate parliamentary scrutiny is less important (or more difficult) than easy, echo-chamber mudslinging?

THE ROLE OF OPPOSITIONS

The website of parliament of Queensland, Australia has a nice, succinct description of the role of an opposition in Parliament:

The Opposition’s main role is to question the government of the day and hold them accountable. Opportunities for scrutinising the policies and administration of the Government are provided in Question Time, the Address- in-Reply debate, Budget debates, debates on legislation, notices of motion and No Confidence Motions. Members of the Opposition who are members of Parliamentary Committees have a further opportunity to scrutinise new legislation as part of the Committee process.

The Opposition also utilises the media to reach the electorate with its views and to establish an identity as an alternative government.

Think about that description for a second, and apply it to our local context. Our Opposition is not using question time, did not engage in the Budget debate and is not participating in parliamentary committees. These are not acts of non-cooperation with THE GOVERNMENT, they are acts of non cooperation with Parliamentary DEMOCRACY.

As I said earlier, set aside whatever you may think of the broad, general tactic of non-cooperation. Oppositions in parliament have duties and functions. They are not optional. Yet, the fact is, that within the four walls of the House of Assembly, the Opposition is simply not doing its job.

Now, like any opposition party in a competitive democracy, the NDP wants to ascend from their current status to the ranks of government. However, in most contexts, not doing your job is a tactic that ends with you being fired, not promoted.

One hundred years ago this month, the Right Excellent Marcus Mosiah Garvey, global icon and national hero of Jamaica, founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). The UNIA, in its heyday, was the era’s most dynamic and visionary mass movement of Black people organised under the banner of Pan-Africanism – of Africa for Africans; of the need for global black businesses; of resistance to Western hegemony; of the right of repatriation of African peoples; and of the universality and unity of African struggles from the United States to the United Kingdom to Latin America to the Caribbean to the Motherland.

The UNIA was also a working class movement of “ordinary” people. The Baltimore Observer newspaper at the time described them as “cooks, porters, hodcarriers, and washwomen,” and tried to deride the Association by mockingly suggesting that Garvey should have on the official seal of the empire “a washtub, a frying pan, a bailhook and a mop.” But it was the working class, people-centred nature of the UNIA (and the Nation of Islam, led by former UNIA member Elijah Muhammad) that was its greatest strength. Pan-African ideology was not simply an academic pursuit for writers, or for scholars without followers. It was a popular movement, with a broad base of support among disenfranchised peoples. That support was what made the UNIA, and Garvey, dangerous.

For Black people, the world of 1914 was vastly different than the one we inhabit today. In 1914, every African country except Ethiopia was the colony of a European power, as was almost every Caribbean country (sans Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti). Within the United States, racial segregation was the law of the land, upheld 20 years earlier by the landmark US Supreme Court case of Plessy v Furgeson. The legal dismantling of segregation and the passage of the Civil Rights Act were still 40 and 50 years away, respectively. These bleak conditions informed the goals and worldview of the UNIA.

Today, many of the more immediate and tangible goals of the UNIA have been achieved, from desegregation to decolonization. But the guiding Pan-Africanist perspective of Garvey’s Association, and his desire for Black people to centre themselves physically or philosophically within the African continuum, remains a distant, and seemingly unreachable goal.

Is Pan Africanism also dead? Or has the unifying dream of the UNIA simply outlived its usefulness, 100 years later?

Post-Garvey, Pan-Africanism as a goal and ideal retreated first to the well-stuffed armchairs of bourgeois intellectuals and then to the rarefied air of political leaders who were tired of a geopolitical world order that was irrevocably stacked against the interests of African peoples. Worse, it also became the last refuge of despotic leaders who used Pan-Africanist rhetoric as a political prophylactic against regional criticism. But the people – the working class “cooks, porters, hodcarriers, and washwomen” who populated and energised the UNIA and invested their money in the Black Star Line – followed a different path. They voted with their wallets, their cultural choices and their visa application fees. Pan-African no longer, we became Pan-Brookynites, Pan-Canadian, and Pan-British. Our spending choices spurred the creation of multinational corporations and global brands. Capitalism, consumerism, individualism and a homogenisation of culture and desire – all lubricated by insidiously omnipresent Western media – was the opiate of Pan-Africanism. The rise of this Westernised ethos of me-first individualism is the antithesis of community-centred or global movements.

But for the annual exercises in rhetorical excess at the summits of the African Union in Addis Ababa, “Pan-Africanist” is a term more frequently used today in eulogies of great men; an epitaph on the tombstones countless Don Quixotes who tilted tirelessly at geopolitical windmills.

The non-African and/or Western-assimilated intelligentsia, long opposed to the revolutionary thesis of Pan-Africanism, has crowed triumphantly that the philosophy is dead. The inglorious murder of Muammar al-Gaddafi, chief funder of the African Union and proponent of a “United States of Africa” triggered giddy joy in America’s establishment press. G. Pascal Zachary, a sometimes-astute non-African technology journalist turned Africa expert, proclaimed in The Atlantic that “Qaddafi’s death. . . is a reminder that pan-Africanism was an historic mistake of enormous proportions.”

“Be it known to all men that whereas, all men are created equal and entitled to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and because of this we, the duly elected representatives of the Negro peoples of the world, invoking the aid of the just and Almighty God do declare all men, women and children of our blood throughout the world free citizens, and do claim them as free citizens of Africa, the Motherland of all Negroes.”

“We believe in the freedom of Africa for the Negro people of the world, and by the principle of Europe for the Europeans and Asia for the Asiatics; we also demand Africa for the Africans at home and abroad.”

Here, in two succinct paragraphs, are bedrock principles of the UNIA’s Pan-Africanism. Freedom and liberation for African peoples and nations; African unity (because you can’t be the a “citizen[] of Africa” unless there is a country called Africa, rather than a collection of sovereign states); and full and equal involvement of the African Diaspora. In claiming Africa as “the Motherland of all Negroes,” the UNIA unequivocally and unapologetically located people of African descent within “the Motherland.” Today, that profound act might not seem as big a deal as it was then, when Africa and everything African was seen as backward and shameful.

On second thought, it is still a huge deal. Africa isn’t commonly portrayed as the “dark continent” of savages and cannibals as it was in 1914 (one of the UNIA’s declarations back then was “We hereby protest against the publication of scandalous and inflammatory articles by an alien press tending to create racial strife and the exhibition of picture films showing the Negro as a cannibal.” – Can you imagine the need to even say something like that??). Nonetheless, the Africa of today is still portrayed solely as a continent of war, poverty, disease and corruption despite the countless examples of the Continent’s accomplishments, modernity, history, innovation, culture and wealth. People of African descent – particularly those of us in the West – are still reluctant to fully embrace the concept of Africa as our ancestral home. The result is our own rootlessness, and our failure to rise up in solidarity when our Motherland is wronged, exploited or neglected by the countries in which we now reside. The rootlessness caused by our failure to embrace the Motherland affects us personally and disadvantages the Continent on the whole.

The United States, the world’s most powerful nation, is home to over 40 million Black people, and has a President whose father was born in Africa. Brazil, one of the world’s rising powers, has close to 100 million people who identify themselves as Black or mixed race – a majority of their population. Peoples of African descent form the majority of most Caribbean nations. The UNIA imagined a world in which these massive and influential populations of Black people would locate themselves in an African continuum – mentally, psychologically, personally and globally. In doing so, they would create a nation of diverse and far-flung peoples whose population, wealth, influence, and power would rival that of any in the world.

“Africa for the Africans at home and abroad” was simultaneously a liberation cry against the colonialism of the day and a forward-looking call for Black people to take interest and ownership in the future of their Motherland. Imagine a continent of 1.1 billion people, with a GDP of $2.4 trillion dollars and a history as old as time itself. Now imagine another 200 million people, even wealthier, on average, than those on the Continent, all forging ties of culture, commerce and common objectives. To imagine that powerful collective, strengthened by its diverse outlooks and experiences, united by ancestry and history, and fortified by a shared goal of development, is to imagine the UNIA’s Pan-African philosophy.

“We strongly condemn the cupidity of those nations of the world who, by open aggression or secret schemes, have seized the territories and inexhaustible natural wealth of Africa, and we place on record our most solemn determination to reclaim the treasures and possession of the vast continent of our forefathers.”

Here is the danger of neglecting the Pan-African cry of “Africa for the Africans:” Without that sense of interest, ownership and united defence of the Continent, the dictates of capitalism and great power intrigue will forever consign Africa to be merely a source of resources for the betterment of other nations. The Continent has supplied other empires with labour and natural resources – and ridiculously unfair terms – for the last 500 years. The names of the exploitative powers have changed, as well as the means of exploitation, but the seizure of the “inexhaustible natural wealth of Africa” continues apace. Just read the news, where the debate about where “investment” ends and “colonialism” begins continues to rage. This prescient foundation principle of the UNIA’s Pan-Africanism is as relevant today as it was 100 years ago. There is no need for me to explain any further the dangerous consequences of allowing other nations and powers to carve up and exploit the Continent’s resources for their benefit instead of Africans’ benefit. Who feels it knows it.

“We demand the right of unlimited and unprejudiced education for ourselves and our posterity forever.”

“We demand that instructions given Negro children in schools include the subject of ‘Negro History’, to their benefit.”

Education – unlimited, unprejudiced, and rooted in history and a positive self-image – was a UNIA Pan-African rallying cry. Over the next 100 years, experts have only reinforced the value of education for development and progress, and the importance of young people developing a sense of themselves that is affirming and empowering.

To ask whether Pan-Africanism is relevant today is to ignore the existing global racial disparities in education, or to endorse those disparities as acceptable. Every study ever conducted makes powerful connections between education and wages, choices and empowerment. You want to empower a people? Educate them. You want to reduce poverty and eliminate a sense of helpless victimhood? Educate the poor and the exploited. The UNIA recognised and championed this visionary cause.

All the new age talk about self esteem being connected to body image, or gender roles, or poverty, or sexuality, pales in comparison to the fundamental disability that children must carry into their adulthood if they believe that they are racially inferior. Not too long ago, Caribbean history was the history of the great European explorers and colonizers – whose individual names we learned – and their exploits relative to a nameless, faceless mass of “slaves” or “natives.” I certainly learned the names of more British and Spanish kings and queens than I did African ones. I was told about the “peaceful” Arawaks and the “warlike, cannibal” Caribs. I learned of the “‘slaves’ taken from Africa” as if the entire Continent was simply an endless source of a different species of human – called ‘slave’ – from whom we all descended: The “bottomless pit” of Bob Marley’s “Redemption Song.”

“We demand a free and unfettered commercial intercourse with all the Negro people of the world.”

And here is the linchpin of Pan-Africanism in today’s globalized, commercialized, hyper-capitalist world: “free and unfettered commercial intercourse” across Africa and between peoples of African descent. Black Business.

100 years ago, the UNIA was calling for a free trade zone among African nations and its Diaspora. Today, we have a European single market and customs union that has revolutionized trade and commerce in that continent (Pan-Europa?). There is an ASEAN Free Trade Area that covers the 600 million people and $2.3 trillion in GDP of ten Asian countries (Pan-Asia?). The North American Free Trade Area covers the almost 500 million peoples of Canada, Mexico and the United States (Pan-America?). The imperative for free trade areas based on geography or history is more urgent today than it was in Garvey’s time, and the examples of Europe and Asia prove its validity in the African context. To paraphrase the UNIA – by the principle of Europe for the Europeans and Asia for the Asians; there is similar demand of African free trade for the Africans.

Today, the establishment of free trade areas and the facilitation of “commercial intercourse” is the bedrock of any integration movement or the creation of a “Pan-“ sense of unity. The reason that Africans in the continent and in the Caribbean often feel a greater sense of kinship or affinity for great Western powers is partially rooted in the pervasive influence and omnipresence of Western commercial brands – from McDonalds and KFCs to iPhones to BMWs. Their ubiquitous presence in our regions, and the way that our aspirations are shaped by them, is rooted in the liberal trading ties we have between our region and our former colonizers or neo-colonizers. And let’s not talk about media: If I ask you to name your favourite TV stations, TV shows, news programmes, movies or magazines; how many will you list before you hit upon an African one? The presence of Western goods and services in our regions – to the exclusion of African ones – is a cause and a symptom of our multifaceted disconnect from the Motherland.

Our trading ties are still patterned on the now-illogical trade routes established by the colonizers and neo-colonialists. Our politicians debate how many Bananas we’ve shipped to England. We discuss how to take advantage of economic partnership agreements with Europe. We go shopping in, and ship barrels fromthe United States. We study how many tourists come from Europe or the USA.

Where is Africa in all this? For that matter, where are the African descendants in Central and South America? In an era of integration, where “Pan-Europeanism” has become a powerful reality despite Europe’s diversity, what is inherent in Africa and Africans that prohibits similar economic unity?

Maybe the UNIA was onto something.

The Caribbean in the Pan-African Renaissance

The Caribbean has produced a disproportionate number of great Pan-Africanist thinkers and leaders. Jamaican Garvey begat Malcolm X (Grenadian parents), Louis Farrakhan (Jamaican and Kittitian parents), Kwame Ture, George Padmore and C.L.R. James (Trinidadian), Frantz Fanon and Aimé Césaire (Martinique), and Walter Rodney (Guyana), to name only a few. Indeed, many Pan-Africanists are born out of a need to look beyond their borders and see themselves as part of something larger than their own limiting immediacy – be it the ghettos and shantytowns of the United States and Africa, or the smallness of a Caribbean island. Pan-Africanism in that sense stands as an ideological oasis in a desert of insular exceptionalism – a rock in an unending torrent of seemingly local problems without solutions. These conditions, and the desire to see beyond them, is at the core of the Caribbean’s leadership in Pan-African thought.

So too has the racial makeup and history of the Caribbean forced us to consider issues of Blackness and exploitation in more global and systemic terms than those for whom racism was a segregationist white man with a noose, a nightstick and a guard dog.

CARICOM’s recent call for reparations from European slave powers for native genocide and African slavery is rooted in the Pan-African agenda. It has electrified and revitalized the remnants of the Pan-African movement worldwide, and the symbiosis between the Reparations movement and the Pan-African agenda will likely be the vehicle that will add impetus and structure to any Pan-Africanist or reparatory successes of the 21st century.

As the first (and second) generations of great Pan-Africanists have died off, the Caribbean has a special responsibility to build on their legacy. Our creativity, intellect, leadership and solidarity have shaped and driven Pan-Africanism for the last 100 years. As a new generation of Caribbean youth look longingly to the north rather than the east, the future of Pan-Africanism for those “at home and abroad” is at a crossroads.

Should we give up on our historical and cultural links to Africa? Should we forget the atrocities that brought our ancestors to Caribbean shores, and the legacies that we still confront today? Should we pattern our education on British or American curricula – with a perfunctory nod of the head to Africa – and call that progress? Should we try to build trading relations solely with the USA and Europe, on unequal terms, or explore trade with the peoples of Africa, Central and South America? Should we see the world with African eyes, or through the media-filtered glasses of FOX News and its ilk?

The answers, I think, are clear.

Happy Anniversary, UNIA. Thank you Marcus Garvey. And long live Pan-Africanism. Rally ’round the flag.

Flag of the UNIA

]]>https://firmmeditation.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/no-one-remembers-old-marcus-garvey/feed/4camillog2014Flag of the UNIAFlag of the UNIA